[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtwI/3/Qp3lSKuls@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 16:43:11 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Siddh Raman Pant <code@...dh.me>
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, Jul 23, 2022 at 08:05:27PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> 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.
You need to explain all of this in a changelog text. Don't say what you
do, but say why you are doing it.
> > 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.
How does the watch queue stuff relate to this keyctl logic?
Again, be specific as to why you are doing things.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists