Re: [PATCH] fork/pid: Fix use-after-free in __task_pid_nr_ns

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 01/06, Qing Wang wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 at 17:04, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > At first glance this is racy. Can't task->signal be freed right after
> > the check?
> >
> > And... Can't we make another fix? If copy_process() fails and does
> > free_signal_struct(), the child has not been added to rcu protected
> > lists and init_task_pid(child) was not called yet.
> >
> > So perhaps something like the patch below can work?
> >
> > Oleg.
> > ---
> >
> > --- x/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ x/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -1422,16 +1422,17 @@ unclone_ctx(struct perf_event_context *c
> >  static u32 perf_event_pid_type(struct perf_event *event, struct task_struct *p,
> >  				enum pid_type type)
> >  {
> > -	u32 nr;
> > +	u32 nr = 0;
> >  	/*
> >  	 * only top level events have the pid namespace they were created in
> >  	 */
> >  	if (event->parent)
> >  		event = event->parent;
> >
> > -	nr = __task_pid_nr_ns(p, type, event->ns);
> > +	if (pid_alive(p))
> > +		nr = __task_pid_nr_ns(p, type, event->ns);
> >  	/* avoid -1 if it is idle thread or runs in another ns */
> > -	if (!nr && !pid_alive(p))
> > +	if (!nr)
> >  		nr = -1;
> >  	return nr;
> >  }
>
> Sorry, please ignore my previous reply. I've reconsidered your code, and
> using pid_alive() to check the validity of tsk->signal is actually correct.
> The pid is assigned after copy_signal(), so if a task has a PID, its
> tsk->signal memory is guaranteed to be valid.

Yes, if the child wasn't fully created then init_task_pid(child) was not
called so pid_alive(p) can't be true.

OK, if you agree with this approach, can you make V2? Or do you prefer
another approach?

The patch above is not 100% correct wrt "avoid -1 ...", but it seems that
this can be fixed.

Oleg.