[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1822b7c129a.14411444236159.6380883938307880248@siddh.me>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 20:05:27 +0530
From: Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
To: "Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"linux-security-modules" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"keyrings" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel-mentees"
<linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] keys/keyctl: Use kfree_rcu instead of kfree
On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 19:35:16 +0530 Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> That does not explain why this change is needed. What problem does this
> solve? Why use RCU if you don't have to? What functionality did you
> just change in this commit and why?
We can avoid a race condition wherein some process tries to access them while
they are being freed. For instance, the comment on `watch_queue_clear()` also
states that:
/*
* Remove all the watches that are contributory to a queue. This has the
* potential to race with removal of the watches by the destruction of the
* objects being watched or with the distribution of notifications.
*/
And an RCU read critical section is initiated in that function, so we should
use kfree_rcu() to not unintentionally free it while it is in the critical
section.
> And how was this tested?
It compiles locally for me, and I used syzbot on this along with testing the
other `watch_queue_clear` patch, which generated no errors.
Thanks,
Siddh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists