[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:32:35 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro <> wrote:

> >>> The solution is to use the seqlock to detect this, and prevent the
> >>> secret information from ever making it back to process B's userspace.
> >>> Note that it's not enough to just recheck arg_start, as process A may
> >>> reassign the proctitle area back to its original position after having
> >>> it somewhere else for a while.
> >>
> >> Well seqlock is _a_ solution. __Another is to use a mutex or an rwsem
> >> around the whole operation.
> >>
> >> With the code as you propose it, what happens if a process sits in a
> >> tight loop running setproctitle? __Do other processes running `ps' get
> >> stuck in a livelock until the offending process gets scheduled out?
> >
> > It does seem like a maximum spin count should be put in there - and
> > maybe a timeout as well (since with FUSE etc it's possible to engineer
> > page faults that take arbitrarily long).
> > Also, it occurs to me that:
> makes sense.
> I like maximum spin rather than timeout.

Start simple. What's wrong with mutex_lock() on the reader and writer
sides? rwsems might be OK too.

In both cases we should think about whether persistent readers can
block the writer excessively though.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-10 08:47    [W:0.080 / U:30.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site