From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Jeremy Katz <jeremy.katz@windriver.com>,
taoyue <yue.tao@windriver.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal()
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:28 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070823220528.GA308@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46CDFDD2.4010600@us.ibm.com>
On 08/23, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >Spotted by taoyue <yue.tao@windriver.com> and Jeremy Katz
> ><jeremy.katz@windriver.com>.
> >
> >collect_signal: sigqueue_free:
> >
> > list_del_init(&first->list);
> > if (!list_empty(&q->list)) {
> > // not taken
> > }
> > q->flags &=
> > ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
> >
> > __sigqueue_free(first); __sigqueue_free(q);
> >
> >Now, __sigqueue_free() is called twice on the same "struct sigqueue" with
> >the
> >obviously bad implications.
> >
> >--- t/kernel/signal.c~SQFREE 2007-08-22 20:06:31.000000000 +0400
> >+++ t/kernel/signal.c 2007-08-23 16:02:57.000000000 +0400
> >@@ -1297,20 +1297,19 @@ struct sigqueue *sigqueue_alloc(void)
> > void sigqueue_free(struct sigqueue *q)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >+ spinlock_t *lock = ¤t->sighand->siglock;
> >+
> > BUG_ON(!(q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC));
> > /*
> > * If the signal is still pending remove it from the
> >- * pending queue.
> >+ * pending queue. We must hold ->siglock while testing
> >+ * q->list to serialize with collect_signal().
> > */
> >- if (unlikely(!list_empty(&q->list))) {
> >- spinlock_t *lock = ¤t->sighand->siglock;
> >- read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> >- spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> >
> Hmm, but the existing code _does_ take the siglock here. Is that not
> sufficient ?
Yes, it does, and this is sufficient, so the patch removes tasklist_lock.
> Isn't the first list_empty() check without lock only an optimization for
> the common
> case ?
Yes, this is optimization, but I strongly believe it is wrong. Please look
at the race description above.
!list_empty(&q->list) does _not_ necessary mean that q is not used and we can
free it. It is possible that collect_signal() just removed this sigqueue from
list (list_empty(&q->list) becomes true) and going to free it.
The whole point is: we can't check list_empty() without ->siglock, this is
racy, and leads to double-free.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-23 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-23 13:45 [PATCH] sigqueue_free: fix the race with collect_signal() Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-23 21:36 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2007-08-23 22:05 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2007-08-24 14:26 ` taoyue
2007-08-24 7:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-24 21:29 ` taoyue
2007-08-24 11:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-24 20:03 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2007-08-24 20:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-25 17:24 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2007-08-25 17:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-08-27 13:45 ` taoyue
2007-08-27 5:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070823220528.GA308@tv-sign.ru \
--to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=adobriyan@sw.ru \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.katz@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=sukadev@us.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yue.tao@windriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox