[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55f0bd69-03a6-4a2f-94e0-6c62e2e3a6f8@web.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:00:52 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Aditya Kali <adityakali@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner
<hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Serge Hallyn <sergeh@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V4] cgroup/cpuset: Prevent UAF in proc_cpuset_show()
>> Under which circumstances would you become interested to apply statements
>> like the following?
>>
>> * guard(rcu)();
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc5/source/include/linux/rcupdate.h#L1093
>>
>> * guard(spinlock_irq)(&css_set_lock);
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc5/source/include/linux/spinlock.h#L567
>
> I don't really care either way.
I find such feedback interesting somehow.
> Neither makes meaningful difference here.
Would you like to support making the affected source code safer and a bit more succinct?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc5/source/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c#L5034
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists