lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rlimit: locking tidy ups
On 05/04, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Cc'd Oleg as he tends to be deeply involved with this class of locking.
>
> Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > proc_pid_limits takes ->sighand lock prior to accessing rlimits, but it
> > serves no purpose as it does not prevent modifications.

Well. I agree this all needs cleanups or at least additional comments, but

> > @@ -618,14 +618,12 @@ static int proc_pid_limits(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task)
> > {
> > unsigned int i;
> > - unsigned long flags;
> >
> > struct rlimit rlim[RLIM_NLIMITS];
> >
> > - if (!lock_task_sighand(task, &flags))
> > - return 0;
> > + task_lock(task->group_leader);

This is already unsafe. ->group_leader can point to nowhere if this threads
exits. lock_task_sighand() ensures that this can't happen.

> > - /* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
> > - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > - if (!tsk->sighand) {
> > - retval = -ESRCH;
> > - goto out;
> > + task_lock(tsk->group_leader);

The same, but yes the comment is misleading.

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-04 21:01    [W:0.036 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site