Alan Cox wrote:
>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)
Ah -- okay.
So the locking order is (for example):
mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
task_lock(current);
Correct?
>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)
Fixed.
>Can you also explain why the ctty change proposed is neccessary ?
disassociate_ctty can call tty_vhangup which calls do tty_hangup directly.
do_tty_hangup can then set p->signal->tty = NULL, and after returning to
disassociate_ctty, the value of tty will now contain a bad pointer. (I can
reproduce this behaviour by running the gdb testsuite with slab debug on)
>NAK the actual code, provisionally agree with the basic diagnosis of
>insufficient locking.
Arjan wrote:
>in addition, are you sure you don't need to revalidate anything after
>retaking the lock?
The only place I need to revalidate data (AFAICT) is in
disassociate_ctty where
I re-check to see if current->signal->tty is still valid. Admittedly, I am
looking at a very specific failure path though.
I'll rework the patch and post later.
P.
-
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]
