From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753714AbbIWKIA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:08:00 -0400
Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([199.115.105.18]:41571 "EHLO
	mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753250AbbIWKH6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:07:58 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:07:40 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kyle Walker <kwalker@redhat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Kozina <skozina@redhat.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, oom: remove task_lock protecting comm printing
Message-ID: <20150923100740.GF12318@esperanza>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509221629440.7794@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <20150923080632.GD12318@esperanza>
 <20150923091354.GA640@swordfish>
 <20150923093021.GE12318@esperanza>
 <20150923094358.GB8644@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20150923095022.GB640@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150923095022.GB640@swordfish>
X-ClientProxiedBy: US-EXCH.sw.swsoft.com (10.255.249.47) To
 US-EXCH2.sw.swsoft.com (10.255.249.46)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:50:22PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/23/15 11:43), Michal Hocko wrote:
> [..]
> > > > the previous name was already null terminated,
> > > 
> > > Yeah, but if the old name is shorter than the new one, set_task_comm()
> > > overwrites the terminating null of the old name before writing the new
> > > terminating null, so there is a short time window during which tsk->comm
> > > might be not null-terminated, no?
> > 
> > Not really:
> >         case PR_SET_NAME:
> >                 comm[sizeof(me->comm) - 1] = 0;
> >                 if (strncpy_from_user(comm, (char __user *)arg2,
> >                                       sizeof(me->comm) - 1) < 0)
> >                         return -EFAULT;
> > 
> > So it first writes the terminating 0 and only then starts copying.

It writes 0 to a temporary buffer, not to tsk->comm, so I don't think
it's related. However, reading tsk->comm w/o locking must be safe
anyway, because tsk->comm[TASK_COMM_LEN-1] is always 0 (inherited from
init_task) and it never gets overwritten, because __set_task_comm() uses
strlcpy().

> 
> right.
> 
> hm, shouldn't set_task_comm()->__set_task_comm() do the same?

I don't think so - see above.

Thanks,
Vladimir