Re: [PATCH] kernel/sys: Optimize do_prlimit lock scope to reduce contention

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 11/27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:21:56 +0800 Zhen Ni <zhen.ni@easystack.cn> wrote:
>
> > The security_task_setrlimit function is a Linux Security Module (LSM)
> > hook that evaluates resource limit changes based on security policies.
> > It does not alter the rlim data structure, as confirmed by existing
> > LSM implementations (e.g., SELinux and AppArmor). Thus, this function
> > does not require locking, ensuring correctness while improving
> > concurrency.
>
> Seems sane.
>
> Does any code call do_prlimit() frequently enough for this to matter?

I have the same question...

> > -	task_lock(tsk->group_leader);
> >  	if (new_rlim) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Keep the capable check against init_user_ns until cgroups can
> >  		 * contain all limits.
> >  		 */
> >  		if (new_rlim->rlim_max > rlim->rlim_max &&
> > -				!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> > -			retval = -EPERM;
> > -		if (!retval)
> > -			retval = security_task_setrlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim);
> > +		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> > +			return -EPERM;
> > +		retval = security_task_setrlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim);
> > +		if (retval)
> > +			return retval;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	task_lock(tsk->group_leader);

The problem is that task_lock(tsk->group_leader) doesn't look right with or
without this patch. I'll try to make a fix on weekend.

If the caller is sys_prlimit64() and tsk != current, then ->group_leader is
not stable, do_prlimit() can race with mt exec and take the wrong lock.

Oleg.