[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190328143958.GB261521@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:39:58 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert struct pid count to refcount_t
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 03:26:19PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/27, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> > Also, based on Kees comment, I think it appears to me that get_pid and
> > put_pid can race in this way in the original code right?
> >
> > get_pid put_pid
> >
> > atomic_dec_and_test returns 1
> > atomic_inc
> > kfree
> >
> > deref pid /* boom */
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I think get_pid needs to call atomic_inc_not_zero()
>
> No.
>
> get_pid() should only be used if you already have a reference or you do
> something like
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> pid = find_vpid();
> get_pid();
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> in this case we rely on call_rcu(delayed_put_pid) which drops the initial
> reference.
>
> If put_pid() sees pid->count == 1, then a) nobody else has a reference and
> b) nobody else can find this pid on rcu-protected lists, so it is safe to
> free it.
I agree. Check my reply to Jann, I already replied to him about this. thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
