Re: [resend][PATCH] Added PR_SET_PROCTITLE_AREA option for prctl()

[Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:32:35 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> >>> The solution is to use the seqlock to detect this, and prevent the
> >>> secret information from ever making it back to process B's userspace.
> >>> Note that it's not enough to just recheck arg_start, as process A may
> >>> reassign the proctitle area back to its original position after having
> >>> it somewhere else for a while.
> >>
> >> Well seqlock is _a_ solution. __Another is to use a mutex or an rwsem
> >> around the whole operation.
> >>
> >> With the code as you propose it, what happens if a process sits in a
> >> tight loop running setproctitle? __Do other processes running `ps' get
> >> stuck in a livelock until the offending process gets scheduled out?
> >
> > It does seem like a maximum spin count should be put in there - and
> > maybe a timeout as well (since with FUSE etc it's possible to engineer
> > page faults that take arbitrarily long).
> > Also, it occurs to me that:
> 
> makes sense.
> I like maximum spin rather than timeout.

Start simple.  What's wrong with mutex_lock() on the reader and writer
sides?  rwsems might be OK too.

In both cases we should think about whether persistent readers can
block the writer excessively though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html