lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Make access to task's nsproxy liter
On 08/10, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >On 08/10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@openvz.org):
> >>>+/*
> >>>+ * the namespaces access rules are:
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * 1. only current task is allowed to change tsk->nsproxy pointer or
> >>>+ * any pointer on the nsproxy itself
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * 2. when accessing (i.e. reading) current task's namespaces - no
> >>>+ * precautions should be taken - just dereference the pointers
> >>>+ *
> >>>+ * 3. the access to other task namespaces is performed like this
> >>>+ * rcu_read_lock();
> >>>+ * nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk);
> >>>+ * if (nsproxy != NULL) {
> >>>+ * / *
> >>>+ * * work with the namespaces here
> >>>+ * * e.g. get the reference on one of them
> >>>+ * * /
> >>>+ * } / *
> >>>+ * * NULL task_nsproxy() means that this task is
> >>>+ * * almost dead (zombie)
> >>>+ * * /
> >>>+ * rcu_read_unlock();
> >>And lastly, I guess that the caller to switch_task_namespaces() has
> >>to ensure that new_nsproxy either (1) is the init namespace, (2) is a
> >>brand-new namespace to which noone else has a reference, or (3) the
> >>caller has to hold a reference to the new_nsproxy across the call to
> >>switch_task_namespaces().
> >>
> >>As it happens the current calls fit (1) or (2). Again if we happen to
> >>jump into the game of switching a task into another task's nsproxy,
> >>we'll need to be mindful of (3) so that new_nsproxy can't be tossed into
> >>the bin between
> >>
> >> if (new)
> >> get_nsproxy(new);
> >
> >4) Unless tsk == current, get_task_namespaces(tsk) and get_nsproxy(tsk)
> > are racy even if done under rcu_read_lock().
>
> Yup :)
>
> It is already written in comment that only the current is allowed
> to change its nsproxy. I.e. when switch_task_nsproxy() is called
> for tsk other than current it's a BUG

Yes, but what I meant is that this code

rcu_read_lock();
nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk);
if (nsproxy != NULL)
get_nsproxy(nsproxy);
rcu_read_unlock();

if (nsproxy) {
use_it(nsproxy);
put_nsproxy(nsproxy);
}

is not safe despite the fact we are _not_ changing tsk->nsproxy.

The patch itself is correct because we don't do that, and the comment
is right. Just it is not immediately obvious.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-10 18:45    [W:0.124 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site