Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
task_free from interrupt context.
Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
---
security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
index 17da6ca..1cba901 100644
--- a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
+++ b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
#include <linux/ptrace.h>
#include <linux/prctl.h>
#include <linux/ratelimit.h>
+#include <linux/workqueue.h>
#define YAMA_SCOPE_DISABLED 0
#define YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL 1
@@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ static int ptrace_scope = YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL;
struct ptrace_relation {
struct task_struct *tracer;
struct task_struct *tracee;
+ bool invalid;
struct list_head node;
struct rcu_head rcu;
};
@@ -36,6 +38,27 @@ struct ptrace_relation {
static LIST_HEAD(ptracer_relations);
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ptracer_relations_lock);
+static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work);
+static DECLARE_WORK(yama_relation_work, yama_relation_cleanup);
+
+/**
+ * yama_relation_cleanup - remove invalid entries from the relation list
+ *
+ */
+static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct ptrace_relation *relation;
+
+ spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
+ if (relation->invalid) {
+ list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
+ kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
+}
+
/**
* yama_ptracer_add - add/replace an exception for this tracer/tracee pair
* @tracer: the task_struct of the process doing the ptrace
@@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
added->tracee = tracee;
added->tracer = tracer;
+ added->invalid = false;
- spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
+ spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
+ if (relation->invalid)
+ continue;
if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
list_replace_rcu(&relation->node, &added->node);
kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
@@ -70,7 +96,7 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
list_add_rcu(&added->node, &ptracer_relations);
out:
- spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
return 0;
}
@@ -84,15 +110,15 @@ static void yama_ptracer_del(struct task_struct *tracer,
{
struct ptrace_relation *relation;
- spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
+ if (relation->invalid)
+ continue;
if (relation->tracee == tracee ||
(tracer && relation->tracer == tracer)) {
- list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
- kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
+ relation->invalid = true;
+ schedule_work(&yama_relation_work);
}
}
- spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
}
/**
@@ -219,12 +245,15 @@ static int ptracer_exception_found(struct task_struct *tracer,
rcu_read_lock();
if (!thread_group_leader(tracee))
tracee = rcu_dereference(tracee->group_leader);
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node)
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
+ if (relation->invalid)
+ continue;
if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
parent = relation->tracer;
found = true;
break;
}
+ }
if (found && (parent == NULL || task_is_descendant(parent, tracer)))
rc = 1;
--
1.7.9.5
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote:
> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
> task_free from interrupt context.
>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
This doesn't apply cleanly to my -next branch.
Kees: can you think about using git to push changes to me for Yama?
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, James Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
>> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
>> task_free from interrupt context.
>>
>> Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
>
> This doesn't apply cleanly to my -next branch.
Did you already apply this from last week?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/808
> Kees: can you think about using git to push changes to me for Yama?
If this pace of changes keeps up, sure thing.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
Quoting Kees Cook ([email protected]):
> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
> task_free from interrupt context.
>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
> ---
> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
> index 17da6ca..1cba901 100644
> --- a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
> +++ b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
> #include <linux/prctl.h>
> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>
> #define YAMA_SCOPE_DISABLED 0
> #define YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL 1
> @@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ static int ptrace_scope = YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL;
> struct ptrace_relation {
> struct task_struct *tracer;
> struct task_struct *tracee;
> + bool invalid;
> struct list_head node;
> struct rcu_head rcu;
> };
> @@ -36,6 +38,27 @@ struct ptrace_relation {
> static LIST_HEAD(ptracer_relations);
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ptracer_relations_lock);
>
> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work);
> +static DECLARE_WORK(yama_relation_work, yama_relation_cleanup);
> +
> +/**
> + * yama_relation_cleanup - remove invalid entries from the relation list
> + *
> + */
> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct ptrace_relation *relation;
> +
> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
> + if (relation->invalid) {
> + list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
> + kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
> + }
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * yama_ptracer_add - add/replace an exception for this tracer/tracee pair
> * @tracer: the task_struct of the process doing the ptrace
> @@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>
> added->tracee = tracee;
> added->tracer = tracer;
> + added->invalid = false;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
> + if (relation->invalid)
> + continue;
> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
> list_replace_rcu(&relation->node, &added->node);
> kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
> @@ -70,7 +96,7 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
> list_add_rcu(&added->node, &ptracer_relations);
>
> out:
> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -84,15 +110,15 @@ static void yama_ptracer_del(struct task_struct *tracer,
> {
> struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
I don't understand - is there a patch I don't have sitting around
which puts the calls to yama_ptracer_del() under rcu_read_lock()?
If not, I don't see how it's safe to walk the list here and risk
racing against another yama_relation_cleanup() run.
I'm probably missing something really cool about the locking,
but it doesn't look right to me. I would think you'd want to
do the loop under rcu_read_lock(), set a boolean if one is
changed, and call schedule_work() once at the end if the boolean
is set.
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
> + if (relation->invalid)
> + continue;
> if (relation->tracee == tracee ||
> (tracer && relation->tracer == tracer)) {
> - list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
> - kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
> + relation->invalid = true;
> + schedule_work(&yama_relation_work);
> }
> }
> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -219,12 +245,15 @@ static int ptracer_exception_found(struct task_struct *tracer,
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (!thread_group_leader(tracee))
> tracee = rcu_dereference(tracee->group_leader);
> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node)
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
> + if (relation->invalid)
> + continue;
> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
> parent = relation->tracer;
> found = true;
> break;
> }
> + }
>
> if (found && (parent == NULL || task_is_descendant(parent, tracer)))
> rc = 1;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, James Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> >> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
> >> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
> >> task_free from interrupt context.
> >>
> >> Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
> >
> > This doesn't apply cleanly to my -next branch.
>
> Did you already apply this from last week?
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/808
Nope.
>
> > Kees: can you think about using git to push changes to me for Yama?
>
> If this pace of changes keeps up, sure thing.
In any case, please check that your patches apply cleanly to my -next
branch.
- James
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Serge Hallyn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Kees Cook ([email protected]):
>> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
>> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
>> task_free from interrupt context.
>>
>> Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>> index 17da6ca..1cba901 100644
>> --- a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>> +++ b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
>> #include <linux/prctl.h>
>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>
>> #define YAMA_SCOPE_DISABLED 0
>> #define YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL 1
>> @@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ static int ptrace_scope = YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL;
>> struct ptrace_relation {
>> struct task_struct *tracer;
>> struct task_struct *tracee;
>> + bool invalid;
>> struct list_head node;
>> struct rcu_head rcu;
>> };
>> @@ -36,6 +38,27 @@ struct ptrace_relation {
>> static LIST_HEAD(ptracer_relations);
>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ptracer_relations_lock);
>>
>> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work);
>> +static DECLARE_WORK(yama_relation_work, yama_relation_cleanup);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * yama_relation_cleanup - remove invalid entries from the relation list
>> + *
>> + */
>> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>> + if (relation->invalid) {
>> + list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
>> + kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * yama_ptracer_add - add/replace an exception for this tracer/tracee pair
>> * @tracer: the task_struct of the process doing the ptrace
>> @@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>
>> added->tracee = tracee;
>> added->tracer = tracer;
>> + added->invalid = false;
>>
>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>> + if (relation->invalid)
>> + continue;
>> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
>> list_replace_rcu(&relation->node, &added->node);
>> kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>> @@ -70,7 +96,7 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>> list_add_rcu(&added->node, &ptracer_relations);
>>
>> out:
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -84,15 +110,15 @@ static void yama_ptracer_del(struct task_struct *tracer,
>> {
>> struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>>
>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>
> I don't understand - is there a patch I don't have sitting around
> which puts the calls to yama_ptracer_del() under rcu_read_lock()?
> If not, I don't see how it's safe to walk the list here and risk
> racing against another yama_relation_cleanup() run.
>
> I'm probably missing something really cool about the locking,
> but it doesn't look right to me. I would think you'd want to
> do the loop under rcu_read_lock(), set a boolean if one is
> changed, and call schedule_work() once at the end if the boolean
> is set.
Unless I'm mistaken and my lockdep tests are wrong,
list_for_each_entry_rcu runs under rcu_read_lock().
I could optimize it to only run schedule_work() once all the marking
is done at the end of the loop.
-Kees
>
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>> + if (relation->invalid)
>> + continue;
>> if (relation->tracee == tracee ||
>> (tracer && relation->tracer == tracer)) {
>> - list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
>> - kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>> + relation->invalid = true;
>> + schedule_work(&yama_relation_work);
>> }
>> }
>> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -219,12 +245,15 @@ static int ptracer_exception_found(struct task_struct *tracer,
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> if (!thread_group_leader(tracee))
>> tracee = rcu_dereference(tracee->group_leader);
>> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node)
>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>> + if (relation->invalid)
>> + continue;
>> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
>> parent = relation->tracer;
>> found = true;
>> break;
>> }
>> + }
>>
>> if (found && (parent == NULL || task_is_descendant(parent, tracer)))
>> rc = 1;
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kees Cook
>> Chrome OS Security
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Serge Hallyn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Quoting Kees Cook ([email protected]):
>>> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
>>> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
>>> task_free from interrupt context.
>>>
>>> Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>>> index 17da6ca..1cba901 100644
>>> --- a/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>>> +++ b/security/yama/yama_lsm.c
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
>>> #include <linux/prctl.h>
>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>>>
>>> #define YAMA_SCOPE_DISABLED 0
>>> #define YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL 1
>>> @@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ static int ptrace_scope = YAMA_SCOPE_RELATIONAL;
>>> struct ptrace_relation {
>>> struct task_struct *tracer;
>>> struct task_struct *tracee;
>>> + bool invalid;
>>> struct list_head node;
>>> struct rcu_head rcu;
>>> };
>>> @@ -36,6 +38,27 @@ struct ptrace_relation {
>>> static LIST_HEAD(ptracer_relations);
>>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ptracer_relations_lock);
>>>
>>> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work);
>>> +static DECLARE_WORK(yama_relation_work, yama_relation_cleanup);
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * yama_relation_cleanup - remove invalid entries from the relation list
>>> + *
>>> + */
>>> +static void yama_relation_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid) {
>>> + list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
>>> + kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * yama_ptracer_add - add/replace an exception for this tracer/tracee pair
>>> * @tracer: the task_struct of the process doing the ptrace
>>> @@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>>
>>> added->tracee = tracee;
>>> added->tracer = tracer;
>>> + added->invalid = false;
>>>
>>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid)
>>> + continue;
>>> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
>>> list_replace_rcu(&relation->node, &added->node);
>>> kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>>> @@ -70,7 +96,7 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>> list_add_rcu(&added->node, &ptracer_relations);
>>>
>>> out:
>>> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -84,15 +110,15 @@ static void yama_ptracer_del(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>> {
>>> struct ptrace_relation *relation;
>>>
>>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>
>> I don't understand - is there a patch I don't have sitting around
>> which puts the calls to yama_ptracer_del() under rcu_read_lock()?
>> If not, I don't see how it's safe to walk the list here and risk
>> racing against another yama_relation_cleanup() run.
>>
>> I'm probably missing something really cool about the locking,
>> but it doesn't look right to me. I would think you'd want to
>> do the loop under rcu_read_lock(), set a boolean if one is
>> changed, and call schedule_work() once at the end if the boolean
>> is set.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken and my lockdep tests are wrong,
> list_for_each_entry_rcu runs under rcu_read_lock().
Ew, yeah, no, the examples I was looking at are missing
rcu_read_lock(). That's sad. Anyway, I'll fix this up here and in the
other patch.
> I could optimize it to only run schedule_work() once all the marking
> is done at the end of the loop.
And I'll do this.
-Kees
>
> -Kees
>
>>
>>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid)
>>> + continue;
>>> if (relation->tracee == tracee ||
>>> (tracer && relation->tracer == tracer)) {
>>> - list_del_rcu(&relation->node);
>>> - kfree_rcu(relation, rcu);
>>> + relation->invalid = true;
>>> + schedule_work(&yama_relation_work);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> - spin_unlock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /**
>>> @@ -219,12 +245,15 @@ static int ptracer_exception_found(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>> if (!thread_group_leader(tracee))
>>> tracee = rcu_dereference(tracee->group_leader);
>>> - list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node)
>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(relation, &ptracer_relations, node) {
>>> + if (relation->invalid)
>>> + continue;
>>> if (relation->tracee == tracee) {
>>> parent = relation->tracer;
>>> found = true;
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> + }
>>>
>>> if (found && (parent == NULL || task_is_descendant(parent, tracer)))
>>> rc = 1;
>>> --
>>> 1.7.9.5
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kees Cook
>>> Chrome OS Security
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
Kees Cook wrote:
> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
> task_free from interrupt context.
> @@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>
> added->tracee = tracee;
> added->tracer = tracer;
> + added->invalid = false;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
Can't you use
spin_lock_irqsave(&ptracer_relations_lock, flags);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ptracer_relations_lock, flags);
instead of adding ->invalid ?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Tetsuo Handa
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Kees Cook wrote:
>> Instead of locking the list during a delete, mark entries as invalid
>> and trigger a workqueue to clean them up. This lets us easily handle
>> task_free from interrupt context.
>
>> @@ -57,9 +80,12 @@ static int yama_ptracer_add(struct task_struct *tracer,
>>
>> added->tracee = tracee;
>> added->tracer = tracer;
>> + added->invalid = false;
>>
>> - spin_lock_bh(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>> + spin_lock(&ptracer_relations_lock);
>
> Can't you use
> spin_lock_irqsave(&ptracer_relations_lock, flags);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ptracer_relations_lock, flags);
> instead of adding ->invalid ?
The _bh was sufficient originally, but looking at Sasha's deadlock, it
seems like I should get rid of locking entirely on this path. What do
you think of this report:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/17/600
I'm concerned that blocking interrupts would be an even more expensive
solution, since every task_free() is forced to block interrupts
briefly. Most systems will have either an empty relations list, or a
very short one, so it seemed better to avoid any locking at all on the
task_free() path. Now the locking contention would be moved to being
between the workqueue and any add calls.
-Kees
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security