From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752755AbZLJO0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752308AbZLJO0t (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55845 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751830AbZLJO0t (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:26:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:20:36 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , "Paul E. McKenney" , Dipankar Sarma , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Al Viro , James Morris , David Howells , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/9] sys: Fix missing rcu protection for __task_cred() access Message-ID: <20091210142036.GA8226@redhat.com> References: <20091210001308.247025548@linutronix.de> <20091210004703.029784964@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091210004703.029784964@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/10, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > commit c69e8d9 (CRED: Use RCU to access another task's creds and to > release a task's own creds) added non rcu_read_lock() protected access > to task creds of the target task in set_prio_one(). > > The comment above the function says: > * - the caller must hold the RCU read lock > > The calling code in sys_setpriority does read_lock(&tasklist_lock) but > not rcu_read_lock(). This works only when CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=n. > With CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y the rcu_callbacks can run in the tick > interrupt when they see no read side critical section. > ... > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/kernel/sys.c > +++ linux-2.6-tip/kernel/sys.c > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, > if (niceval > 19) > niceval = 19; > > + rcu_read_lock(); > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); Off-topic, but can't resist... This also fixes another bug here. find_task_by_vpid() is not safe without rcu_read_lock(). I do not mean it is not safe to use the result, just find_pid_ns() by itself is not safe. Usually tasklist gives enough protection, but if copy_process() fails it calls free_pid() lockless and does call_rcu(delayed_put_pid(). This means, without rcu lock find_pid_ns() can't scan the hash table safely. Oleg.