Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I'll try very much to read this series tomorrow, can't do this today...
>
> On 06/06, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> @@ -1380,13 +1380,6 @@ int do_prlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
>> return -EPERM;
>> }
>>
>> - /* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
>> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>> - if (!tsk->sighand) {
>> - retval = -ESRCH;
>> - goto out;
>> - }
>
> Yes, the comment is wrong.
>
> However we do need read_lock(tasklist_lock) to access ->group_leader. And the
> ->sighand != NULL check ensures that ->group_leader is the valid
> pointer.
As of 4.12-rc1 The code does not access group_leader anymore.
> Also, update_rlimit_cpu() is not safe without tasklist / sighand-check.
>
> We can probably change this code to rely on rcu.
Good point a NULL sighand will cause update_rlimit_cpu to OOPS.
Grr. There is a point in my tree where this is perfectly safe. But not
at this point. Consider this patch dropped for the moment.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
