From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: fix cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed() vs rename() race Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:26:33 +0000 Message-ID: <20130125072633.GD4503@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <51022FBC.2020705@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51022FBC.2020705-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Li Zefan Cc: Tejun Heo , LKML , Cgroups , David Rientjes On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 03:09:48PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > rename() will change dentry->d_name. The result of this race can > be worse than seeing partially rewritten name, but we might access > a stale pointer because rename() will re-allocate memory to hold > a longer name. > > It's safe in the protection of dentry->d_lock. > > Signed-off-by: Li Zefan > --- > kernel/cpuset.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c > index 16be7c9..b2476c2 100644 > --- a/kernel/cpuset.c > +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c > @@ -2606,8 +2606,12 @@ void cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk) > > dentry = task_cs(tsk)->css.cgroup->dentry; > spin_lock(&cpuset_buffer_lock); > + > + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock); > snprintf(cpuset_name, CPUSET_NAME_LEN, > dentry ? (const char *)dentry->d_name.name : "/"); Ahem... Can dentry actually be NULL here? If not, this conditional is bogus; otherwise, spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock) is going to blow up...