Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:22:22 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, 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,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixing directly deferencing a __rcu pointer warning
Message-ID: <20231027122221.GA24128@redhat.com>
References: <20231025165002.64ab92e6d55d204b66e055f4@linux-foundation.org>
 <20231026122748.359162-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
 <20231026150326.GA33303@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231026150326.GA33303@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 10/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >  kernel/fork.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > index 10917c3e1f03..802b7bbe3d92 100644
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -2369,7 +2369,7 @@ __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 &&
> > +		if (rcu_dereference(p->real_cred)->user != INIT_USER &&
> >  		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> >  			goto bad_fork_cleanup_count;
> >  	}
>
> This seems entirely misguided and only makes the code more confusing.
>
> AFAICT at this point @p is not life, we're constructing the new task,
> but it's not yet published, therefore no concurrency possible.
> Additionally we're not actually in an RCU critical section afaict.
>
> > @@ -2692,7 +2692,7 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
> >  			 */
> >  			p->signal->has_child_subreaper = p->real_parent->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
> >  							 p->real_parent->signal->is_child_subreaper;
> > -			list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
> > +			list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &(rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->children));
> >  			list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
> >  			attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
> >  			attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
>
> As to the real_parent, we hold the tasklist lock, which is the write
> side lock for parent stuff, so rcu dereference is pointless here.

Agreed.

Plus I don't think this change is correct, iiuc rcu_dereference() will trigger
the run-time "suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage" warning, it is called
without rcu_read_lock().

Oleg.