From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() paths
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 13:09:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250914110937.GA18778@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250914110908.GA18769@redhat.com>
The usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64()->do_prlimit()
path is very broken.
sys_prlimit64() does get_task_struct(tsk) but this only protects task_struct
itself. If tsk != current and tsk is not a leader, this process can exit/exec
and task_lock(tsk->group_leader) may use the already freed task_struct.
Another problem is that sys_prlimit64() can race with mt-exec which changes
->group_leader. In this case do_prlimit() may take the wrong lock, or (worse)
->group_leader may change between task_lock() and task_unlock().
Change sys_prlimit64() to take tasklist_lock when necessary. This is not
nice, but I don't see a better fix for -stable.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: c022a0acad53 ("rlimits: implement prlimit64 syscall")
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
kernel/sys.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
index 1e28b40053ce..36d66ff41611 100644
--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sys.c
@@ -1734,6 +1734,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(prlimit64, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, resource,
struct rlimit old, new;
struct task_struct *tsk;
unsigned int checkflags = 0;
+ bool need_tasklist;
int ret;
if (old_rlim)
@@ -1760,8 +1761,25 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(prlimit64, pid_t, pid, unsigned int, resource,
get_task_struct(tsk);
rcu_read_unlock();
- ret = do_prlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim ? &new : NULL,
- old_rlim ? &old : NULL);
+ need_tasklist = !same_thread_group(tsk, current);
+ if (need_tasklist) {
+ /*
+ * Ensure we can't race with group exit or de_thread(),
+ * so tsk->group_leader can't be freed or changed until
+ * read_unlock(tasklist_lock) below.
+ */
+ read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
+ if (!pid_alive(tsk))
+ ret = -ESRCH;
+ }
+
+ if (!ret) {
+ ret = do_prlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim ? &new : NULL,
+ old_rlim ? &old : NULL);
+ }
+
+ if (need_tasklist)
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
if (!ret && old_rlim) {
rlim_to_rlim64(&old, &old64);
--
2.25.1.362.g51ebf55
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-14 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-14 11:09 [PATCH 1/2] fix the wrong comment on task_lock() nesting with tasklist_lock Oleg Nesterov
2025-09-14 11:09 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2025-09-14 17:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() paths Mateusz Guzik
2025-09-14 19:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-09-15 12:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-09-15 13:19 ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-09-15 12:09 ` [PATCH v2 " 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=20250914110937.GA18778@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.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