lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/3] audit: Use rcu for task lookup protection
On 09/07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Protect the task lookups in audit_receive_msg() with rcu_read_lock()
> instead of tasklist_lock and use lock/unlock_sighand to protect
> against the exit race.

I do not understand audit, but I belive both 1/3 and 3/3 patches are
fine (I didn't get 2/3).



But, sorry, can't resists ;) off-topic nit.

> @@ -873,17 +873,16 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_b
> case AUDIT_TTY_GET: {
> struct audit_tty_status s;
> struct task_struct *tsk;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> tsk = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> - if (!tsk)
> - err = -ESRCH;
> - else {
> - spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> + if (tsk && lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)) {
> s.enabled = tsk->signal->audit_tty != 0;

Yes, this is what original code does, it takes ->siglock every time
around read/write of ->audit_tty. And this looks absolutely bogus.
Say, tty_audit_fork(). Why does it take ->siglock ?

As for ->tty_audit_buf, I am not sure ->siglock is the best choice,
perhaps task_lock() would be better.


Once again, I think the patch is fine. Just it seems to me this code
needs more cleanups.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-07 20:31    [W:0.058 / U:6.204 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site