Re: [PATCH] core: allow setrlimit to non-current tasks

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 09/03, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> @@ -1240,6 +1240,7 @@ int setrlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
>  		struct rlimit *new_rlim)
>  {
>  	struct rlimit *old_rlim;
> +	unsigned int needs_locking = !same_thread_group(tsk, current);
>  	int retval;

Yes, thanks for doing this, imho this optimization is worthwhile.

But I'd suggest you to add this optimization in a separate patch
because,

> +	/* optimization: 'current' doesn't need locking, e.g. setrlimit */
> +	if (needs_locking) {
> +		/* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
> +		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +		if (!tsk->sighand) {
> +			retval = -ESRCH;
> +			goto unlock;

I should have mentioned this before, but it is not that simple.

Even if same_thread_group(tsk, current), we must not trust tsk->sighand,
it can be NULL if our subthread is dead. (well, we need ->signal, not
->sighand but this doesn't matter because they disappear simultaneously).

Actually, perhaps same_thread_group() is not needed, perhaps it is enough
to avoid tasklist in sys_setrlimit case. So, I think optimization should
do:

	retval = -ESRCH;
	if (tsk != current) {
		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
		if (!tsk->sighand)
			goto unlock;
	}

unlock:
	if (tsk != current)
		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);


Or, if we use same_thread_group(),

	needs_locking = !same_thread_group(tsk, current);

	if (!needs_locking)
		tsk = current;
	else {
		take tasklist, check ->sighand.
	}

Oleg.