mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sys: only take tasklist_lock for get/setpriority(PRIO_PGRP)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 17:31:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200817003148.23691-2-dave@stgolabs.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200817003148.23691-1-dave@stgolabs.net>

PRIO_PGRP needs the tasklist_lock mainly to serialize vs setpgid(2),
to protect against any concurrent change_pid(PIDTYPE_PGID) that
can move the task from one hlist to another while iterating.

However, the remaining can only rely only on RCU:

PRIO_PROCESS only does the task lookup and never iterates over
tasklist and we already have an rcu-aware stable pointer.

PRIO_USER is already racy vs setuid(2) so with creds being rcu
protected, we can end up seeing stale data. When removing the
tasklist_lock there can be a race with (i) fork but this is benign
as the child's nice is inherited and the new task is not observable
by the user yet either, hence the return semantics do not differ.
And (ii) a race with exit, which is a small window and can cause
us to miss a task which was removed from the list and it had the
highest nice.

Similarly change the buggy do_each_thread/while_each_thread combo
in PRIO_USER for the rcu-safe for_each_process_thread flavor,
which doesn't make use of next_thread/p->thread_group.

Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
---
 kernel/sys.c | 16 ++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
index ca11af9d815d..4d4f17c01a4f 100644
--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sys.c
@@ -214,7 +214,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int, niceval)
 		niceval = MAX_NICE;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	switch (which) {
 	case PRIO_PROCESS:
 		if (who)
@@ -229,9 +228,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int, niceval)
 			pgrp = find_vpid(who);
 		else
 			pgrp = task_pgrp(current);
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 		do_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p) {
 			error = set_one_prio(p, niceval, error);
 		} while_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p);
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 		break;
 	case PRIO_USER:
 		uid = make_kuid(cred->user_ns, who);
@@ -243,16 +244,15 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(setpriority, int, which, int, who, int, niceval)
 			if (!user)
 				goto out_unlock;	/* No processes for this user */
 		}
-		do_each_thread(g, p) {
+		for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
 			if (uid_eq(task_uid(p), uid) && task_pid_vnr(p))
 				error = set_one_prio(p, niceval, error);
-		} while_each_thread(g, p);
+		}
 		if (!uid_eq(uid, cred->uid))
 			free_uid(user);		/* For find_user() */
 		break;
 	}
 out_unlock:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 out:
 	return error;
@@ -277,7 +277,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(getpriority, int, which, int, who)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	switch (which) {
 	case PRIO_PROCESS:
 		if (who)
@@ -295,11 +294,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(getpriority, int, which, int, who)
 			pgrp = find_vpid(who);
 		else
 			pgrp = task_pgrp(current);
+		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 		do_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p) {
 			niceval = nice_to_rlimit(task_nice(p));
 			if (niceval > retval)
 				retval = niceval;
 		} while_each_pid_thread(pgrp, PIDTYPE_PGID, p);
+		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 		break;
 	case PRIO_USER:
 		uid = make_kuid(cred->user_ns, who);
@@ -311,19 +312,18 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(getpriority, int, which, int, who)
 			if (!user)
 				goto out_unlock;	/* No processes for this user */
 		}
-		do_each_thread(g, p) {
+	        for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
 			if (uid_eq(task_uid(p), uid) && task_pid_vnr(p)) {
 				niceval = nice_to_rlimit(task_nice(p));
 				if (niceval > retval)
 					retval = niceval;
 			}
-		} while_each_thread(g, p);
+		}
 		if (!uid_eq(uid, cred->uid))
 			free_uid(user);		/* for find_user() */
 		break;
 	}
 out_unlock:
-	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	return retval;
-- 
2.26.2


  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-17  0:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-17  0:31 [PATCH -next 0/2] tasklist_lock vs get/set priority syscalls Davidlohr Bueso
2020-08-17  0:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2020-08-17 14:10   ` [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sys: only take tasklist_lock for get/setpriority(PRIO_PGRP) Oleg Nesterov
2020-08-17  0:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] block: fix ioprio_get/set(IOPRIO_WHO_PGRP) vs setuid(2) Davidlohr Bueso
2020-08-17 14:09   ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-08-17 14:12   ` Jens Axboe
2020-09-04 22:39 ` [PATCH -next 0/2] tasklist_lock vs get/set priority syscalls Davidlohr Bueso

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=20200817003148.23691-2-dave@stgolabs.net \
    --to=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®