mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Massimiliano Hofer <max@nucleus.it>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: race in remove_proc_entry()
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:13:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200604271613.38590.max@nucleus.it> (raw)

Hi,
I found what I think is a nasty behaviour in procfs.

If I create a proc entry and rely on proc_file_read() and proc_file_write() to 
hand requests to dp->read_proc and dp->write_proc there is no protection from 
removal.

Example:
Process A            Process B
proc_file_read()
                     remove_proc_entry()
                     kfree(/* whatever was in dp->data */)
dp->read_proc()


read_proc() has no way to know if dp->data has been zeroed or freed since it 
was read by proc_file_read(). Process B has no way to know that a read is in 
progress.
Of course I can reimplement proc_file_read(), but this makes it pointless in 
the first place.
Most proc entries live as long as the kernel or the module that creates them, 
so this is a really rare problem, but there are simple precautions that could 
prevent it.

We could:
- add a per proc file lock (it could be optional);
- add an optional callback that allows us to perform whatever is needed when 
the file is really removed (remove_proc_entry() or de_put()).

The latter would be really simple and would allow for proper completion of 
read/write operations with whatever lock and protection is needed inside 
dp->data and possibly a simple kfree() performed by the disposal callback 
when everyone is really done.

-- 
Saluti,
   Massimiliano Hofer
        Nucleus

                 reply	other threads:[~2006-04-27 14:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200604271613.38590.max@nucleus.it \
    --to=max@nucleus.it \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome