Re: [PATCH 2/2] fix kill_proc_info() vs fork() theoretical race

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>]

"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:13:26PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > copy_process:
> >
> >       attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PID, p->pid);
> >       attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_TGID, p->tgid);
> >
> > What if kill_proc_info(p->pid) happens in between?
> 
> Doesn't your patch 1/2 that expanded the scope of siglock in
> copy_process() prevent this from happening?

I think, no. Please see below,

> o       A new process is being created on CPU 0, and does the first
>         attach_pid() in copy_process(), but has not yet done
>         the second attach_pid().
> 
> o       Meanwhile, on CPU 1, kill_proc_info() successfully looks up the
>         new process via find_task_by_pid().
> 
> o       Also on CPU 1, kill_proc_info() calls group_send_sig_info(),
>         which checks permissions, locates the sighand structure,
>         then attempts to acquire siglock.

... and takes it. Without CLONE_THREAD (more precisely, CLONE_SIGHAND)
we have different ->sighand for parent (current) and for the new child.

copy_process() holds parents's ->sighand, while group_send_sig_info()
takes child's.

Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/