Re: [PATCH] signal.c: Fix sparse warnings

[Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:21:38PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 09:53:19PM +0530, madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>
> > 
> > This patch fixes the following two sparse warnings caused due to
> > accessing RCU protected pointer tsk->parent without rcu primitives.
> > 
> > kernel/signal.c:1948:65: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > kernel/signal.c:1948:65:    expected struct task_struct *tsk
> > kernel/signal.c:1948:65:    got struct task_struct [noderef] <asn:4> *parent
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40:    expected void const volatile *p
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40:    got struct cred const [noderef] <asn:4> *[noderef] <asn:4> *
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40:    expected void const volatile *p
> > kernel/signal.c:1949:40:    got struct cred const [noderef] <asn:4> *[noderef] <asn:4> *
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/signal.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> > index 9ad8dea93dbb..3d59e5652d94 100644
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -1945,8 +1945,8 @@ bool do_notify_parent(struct task_struct *tsk, int sig)
> >  	 * correct to rely on this
> >  	 */
> >  	rcu_read_lock();
> > -	info.si_pid = task_pid_nr_ns(tsk, task_active_pid_ns(tsk->parent));
> > -	info.si_uid = from_kuid_munged(task_cred_xxx(tsk->parent, user_ns),
> > +	info.si_pid = task_pid_nr_ns(tsk, task_active_pid_ns(rcu_access_pointer(tsk->parent)));
> > +	info.si_uid = from_kuid_munged(task_cred_xxx(rcu_access_pointer(tsk->parent), user_ns),
> 
> Shouldn't rcu_dereference() OR rcu_dereference_check() be better suited
> here? Since, rcu_access_pointer() omits all lockdep checks.
>
I used rcu_access_pointer() because I thought the pointer is not
dereferenced. But it is dereferenced in task_pid() and task_cred_xxx().

Thank you for pointing out, I will send the updated patch.

Thanks,
Madhuparna

> Thanks
> Amol
> 
> >  				       task_uid(tsk));
> >  	rcu_read_unlock();
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.17.1
> >