On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 4:37 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:30:40AM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > Using __get_task_comm() to read the task comm ensures that the name is
> > always NUL-terminated, regardless of the source string. This approach also
> > facilitates future extensions to the task comm.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/kmemleak.c | 8 +-------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > index d5b6fba44fc9..ef29aaab88a0 100644
> > --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> > +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> > @@ -663,13 +663,7 @@ static struct kmemleak_object *__alloc_object(gfp_t gfp)
> > strncpy(object->comm, "softirq", sizeof(object->comm));
> > } else {
> > object->pid = current->pid;
> > - /*
> > - * There is a small chance of a race with set_task_comm(),
> > - * however using get_task_comm() here may cause locking
> > - * dependency issues with current->alloc_lock. In the worst
> > - * case, the command line is not correct.
> > - */
> > - strncpy(object->comm, current->comm, sizeof(object->comm));
> > + __get_task_comm(object->comm, sizeof(object->comm), current);
> > }
>
> You deleted the comment stating why it does not use get_task_comm()
> without explaining why it would be safe now. I don't recall the details
> but most likely lockdep warned of some potential deadlocks with this
> function being called with the task_lock held.
>
> So, you either show why this is safe or just use strscpy() directly here
> (not sure we'd need strscpy_pad(); I think strscpy() would do, we just
> need the NUL-termination).
The task_lock was dropped in patch #1 [0]. My apologies for not
including you in the CC for that change. After this modification, it
is now safe to use __get_task_comm().
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240613023044.45873-2-laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx/
--
Regards
Yafang
