Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758292AbZLJCnc (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:43:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757842AbZLJCnW (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:43:22 -0500 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:53738 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754962AbZLJCnT (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:43:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:43:24 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Dipankar Sarma , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Oleg Nesterov , Al Viro , James Morris , David Howells , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/9] sys: Fix missing rcu protection for __task_cred() access Message-ID: <20091210024324.GH6938@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20091210001308.247025548@linutronix.de> <20091210004703.029784964@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091210004703.029784964@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2341 Lines: 67 On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:52:51AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > commit c69e8d9 (CRED: Use RCU to access another task's creds and to > release a task's own creds) added non rcu_read_lock() protected access > to task creds of the target task in set_prio_one(). > > The comment above the function says: > * - the caller must hold the RCU read lock > > The calling code in sys_setpriority does read_lock(&tasklist_lock) but > not rcu_read_lock(). This works only when CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=n. > With CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y the rcu_callbacks can run in the tick > interrupt when they see no read side critical section. > > There is another instance of __task_cred() in sys_setpriority() itself > which is equally unprotected. > > Wrap the whole code section into a rcu read side critical section to > fix this quick and dirty. > > Will be revisited in course of the read_lock(&tasklist_lock) -> rcu > crusade. OK, I will bite... Don't the corresponding updates write-hold tasklist_lock? If so, then the fact that the code below is read-holding tasklist_lock would prevent any of the data from changing, which would remove the need to do the rcu_read_lock(). Or are there updates that are carried out without write-holding tasklist_lock that I am missing? Thanx, Paul > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner > Cc: David Howells > Cc: James Morris > Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org > --- > kernel/sys.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > Index: linux-2.6-tip/kernel/sys.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/kernel/sys.c > +++ linux-2.6-tip/kernel/sys.c > @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, > if (niceval > 19) > niceval = 19; > > + rcu_read_lock(); > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > switch (which) { > case PRIO_PROCESS: > @@ -200,6 +201,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, > } > out_unlock: > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > out: > return error; > } > > -- 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/