Re: yama_ptrace_access_check(): possible recursive locking detected

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 08/15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 15:01 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > BTW, set_task_comm()->wmb() and memset() should die. There are
> > not needed afaics, and the comment is misleading.
>
> As long as we guarantee there's always a terminating '\0',

Yes, but we already have this guarantee?

Unless of course some buggy code does something wrong with task->comm[],
but nobody should do this.

IOW, task->comm[TASK_COMM_LEN - 1] is always 0, no?

> now strlcpy()
> doesn't pad the result,

afaics set_task_comm()->strlcpy() doesn't change the last byte too.

> however if we initialize the ->comm to all 0s in
> fork()

fork() is special, yes. ->comm is copied by dup_task_struct() and
the new task_struct can have everything in ->comm. But nobody can
see the new task yet, and nobody can play with its ->comm.

Or I misunderstood?

> That barrier is indeed completely pointless as there's no pairing
> barrier anywhere.

Yes, agreed.

Oleg.