Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:02:40 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nschichan@freebox.fr, keescook@chromium.org,
        james.l.morris@oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, holt@sgi.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sys, seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and
	SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC
Message-ID: <20140114200240.GA801@redhat.com>
References: <1389645028-17157-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <1389645028-17157-2-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <20140114192118.GA31411@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140114192118.GA31411@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 01/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > +			get_seccomp_filter(caller);
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Drop the task reference to the shared ancestor since
> > +			 * current's path will hold a reference.  (This also
> > +			 * allows a put before the assignment.)
> > +			 */
> > +			put_seccomp_filter(thread);
> > +			thread->seccomp.filter = caller->seccomp.filter;
>
> As I said, I do not understand this patch yet, but this looks suspicious.
>
> Why we can't race with this thread doing clone(CLONE_THREAD) ? We do
> not the the new thread yet, but its ->seccomp can be already copied
> by copy_process(), no?

And it seems that this can obviously race with seccomp_attach_filter()
called by this "thread".

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/