From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758311Ab0IGUZ6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:25:58 -0400
Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:40949 "EHLO www.tglx.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758248Ab0IGUZ5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:25:57 -0400
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 22:25:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] audit: Use rcu for task lookup protection
In-Reply-To: <20100907182536.GA21588@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009072224080.2477@localhost6.localdomain6>
References: <20100907111326.202980881@linutronix.de> <20100907111349.980032649@linutronix.de> <20100907182536.GA21588@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 09/07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Protect the task lookups in audit_receive_msg() with rcu_read_lock()
> > instead of tasklist_lock and use lock/unlock_sighand to protect
> > against the exit race.
> 
> I do not understand audit, but I belive both 1/3 and 3/3 patches are
> fine (I didn't get 2/3).
> 
> 
> 
> But, sorry, can't resists ;) off-topic nit.
> 
> > @@ -873,17 +873,16 @@ static int audit_receive_msg(struct sk_b
> >  	case AUDIT_TTY_GET: {
> >  		struct audit_tty_status s;
> >  		struct task_struct *tsk;
> > +		unsigned long flags;
> >
> > -		read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > +		rcu_read_lock();
> >  		tsk = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> > -		if (!tsk)
> > -			err = -ESRCH;
> > -		else {
> > -			spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
> > +		if (tsk && lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)) {
> >  			s.enabled = tsk->signal->audit_tty != 0;
> 
> Yes, this is what original code does, it takes ->siglock every time
> around read/write of ->audit_tty. And this looks absolutely bogus.
> Say, tty_audit_fork(). Why does it take ->siglock ?
> 
> As for ->tty_audit_buf, I am not sure ->siglock is the best choice,
> perhaps task_lock() would be better.
>
> Once again, I think the patch is fine. Just it seems to me this code
> needs more cleanups.

Yeah, thought about that, but that's not in the scope of what I was
working on. I leave that to the audit folks. :)
 
Thanks,

	tglx