On 10/26/23 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 04:57:42 +0530 Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/26/23 04:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>>>> @@ -2369,7 +2369,9 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>>>>    
>>>>    	retval = -EAGAIN;
>>>>    	if (is_rlimit_overlimit(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
>>>> -		if (p->real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
>>>> +		const struct cred *real_cred = rcu_dereference(p->real_cred);
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (real_cred && real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
>>>>    		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>>>>    			goto bad_fork_cleanup_count;
>>>
>>> The old code assumes that p->read_cred cannot be NULL and the new code
>>> does nothing to make it possible that `real_cred' can be NULL?
>>>
>>> In other words, I see no reason to add this new check for NULL?
>>
>> Thank you for the response!
>>
>> I thought it will be better to have check before accessing it, just so
>> we dont have any segmentation fault in future.
> 
> That would be adding code which has no effect?
> 
>> Also I just noticed there are two more places where direct dereferencing
>> of __rcu pointer is done in this same file. Should I do those changes in
>> this patch ?
> 
> I don't see why.  rcu_dereference(p) cannot return NULL if `p' is non-NULL?