Re: [PATCH] exec: fix set_binfmt() vs sys_delete_module() race

[Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 04:58:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>On 07/28, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 07:19:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> >sys_delete_module() can set MODULE_STATE_GOING after search_binary_handler()
>> >does try_module_get(). In this case set_binfmt()->try_module_get() fails but
>> >since none of the callers check the returned error, the task will run with
>> >the wrong old ->binfmt.
>> >
>> >The proper fix should change all ->load_binary() methods, but we can rely
>> >on fact that the caller must hold a reference to binfmt->module and use
>> >__module_get() which never fails.
>> >
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>>
>> Would like to put the last words as comments into code below?
>
>Yes, thanks.
>
>Rusty pointed out this too, and I already sent the updated patch.
>But due to my mistake (I forgot to CC lkml) this was discussed
>off-list.

I see...

>
>> >-int set_binfmt(struct linux_binfmt *new)
>> >+void set_binfmt(struct linux_binfmt *new)
>> > {
>> >-	struct linux_binfmt *old = current->binfmt;
>> >+	if (current->binfmt)
>> >+		module_put(current->binfmt->module);
>> >
>> >-	if (new) {
>> >-		if (!try_module_get(new->module))
>> >-			return -1;
>> >-	}
>> > 	current->binfmt = new;
>> >-	if (old)
>> >-		module_put(old->module);
>> >-	return 0;
>> >+	if (new)
>> >+		__module_get(new->module);
>>
>>
>> I prefer to put the 'current->binfmt = new;' line as the last
>> statement within this function, since this is more readable for me.
>
>Perhaps... but this is purely cosmetic, and the patch is already
>in -mm. Unless you have a strong feeleing, I'd prefer to not send
>yet another update.
>

No problem, it's just my personal taste. :-D

Thanks!