Ar Sad, 2006-10-14 am 07:22 -0400, ysgrifennodd Prarit Bhargava:
> Additional tty_mutex locking in do_tty_hangup and disassociate_ctty. It is
> possible that do_tty_hangup sets current->signal->tty = NULL. If that
> happens then disassociate_ctty can corrupt memory.
Ugly but I don't think the patches are sufficient. Firstly you need to
hold the task lock if you are poking around some other users ->signal,
or that may itself change. (disassociate_ctty seems to have this wrong)
Secondly you appear to have lock ordering issues (you lock tty_mutex in
both orders relative to the task list lock) (you take tty_mutex first,
then the task lock which is correct, but then you drop and retake the
tty_mutex while holding the task lock, which may deadlock)
Can you also explain why the ctty change proposed is neccessary ?
NAK the actual code, provisionally agree with the basic diagnosis of
insufficient locking.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
