On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 11:12 AM David Rheinsberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023, at 11:01 AM, Alexander Mikhalitsyn wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:52 AM David Rheinsberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> >> int pidfd_prepare(struct pid *pid, unsigned int flags, struct file **ret)
> >> {
> >> - if (!pid || !pid_has_task(pid, PIDTYPE_TGID))
> >> + if (!pid)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Non thread-group leaders cannot have pidfds, but we allow them for
> >> + * reaped thread-group leaders.
> >> + */
> >> + if (pid_has_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID) && !pid_has_task(pid, PIDTYPE_TGID))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Hi David!
> >
> > As far as I understand, __unhash_process is always called with a
> > tasklist_lock held for writing.
> > Don't we need to take tasklist_lock for reading here to guarantee
> > consistency between
> > pid_has_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID) and pid_has_task(pid, PIDTYPE_TGID)
> > return values?
>
> You mean PIDTYPE_TGID being cleared before PIDTYPE_PID (at least from the perspective of the unlocked reader)? I don't think it is a compatibility issue, because the same issue existed before the patch. But it might indeed be required to avoid spurious EINVAL _while_ the target process is reaped.
Yes, that was my thought. At the same time we can see that
__unhash_process() function at first detaches PIDTYPE_PID and then
PIDTYPE_TGID.
But without having any kind of memory barrier (and locks are also
implicit memory barriers) we can't be sure that inconsistency won't
happen here.
>
> It would be unfortunate if we need that. Because it is really not required for AF_UNIX or fanotify (they guarantee that they always deal with TGIDs). So maybe the correct call is to just drop pidfd_prepare() and always use __pidfd_prepare()? So far the safety-measures of pidfd_prepare() introduced two races I already mentioned in the commit-message. So maybe it is just better to document that the caller of __pidfd_prepare() needs to ensure the source is/was a TGID?
Do you think that taking read_lock(&tasklist_lock) can cause any
issues with contention on it?
IMHO, read_lock should be safe as we are taking it for a short period of time.
But anyways, I'm not insisting on that. I've just wanted to point this
out to discuss with you and folks.
Kind regards,
Alex
>
> Thanks
> David