Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 15:38:07 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Cc:     brauner@kernel.org, surenb@google.com, mst@redhat.com,
        michael.christie@oracle.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        mjguzik@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixing warning of directly dereferencing  __rcu tagged
Message-Id: <20231025153807.8db950f1db82b2c9ecd03758@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231025222811.855336-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
References: <20231025222811.855336-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 03:58:11 +0530 Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com> wrote:

> This patch fixes the warning about directly dereferencing a pointer
> tagged with __rcu annotation.
> 
> Dereferencing the pointers tagged with __rcu directly should 
> always be avoided according to the docs. There is a rcu helper 
> functions rcu_dereference(...) to use when dereferencing a __rcu 
> pointer. This functions returns the non __rcu tagged pointer. 

Seems sensible.

> Like normal pointer there should be a check for null case when 
> further dereferencing the returned dereferenced __rcu pointer.

Why is this?

> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -2369,7 +2369,9 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>  
>  	retval = -EAGAIN;
>  	if (is_rlimit_overlimit(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
> -		if (p->real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
> +		const struct cred *real_cred = rcu_dereference(p->real_cred);
> +
> +		if (real_cred && real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
>  		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>  			goto bad_fork_cleanup_count;

The old code assumes that p->read_cred cannot be NULL and the new code
does nothing to make it possible that `real_cred' can be NULL?

In other words, I see no reason to add this new check for NULL?