]> www.pilppa.org Git - linux-2.6-omap-h63xx.git/commit
[PATCH] fix kill_proc_info() vs fork() theoretical race
authorOleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:13:26 +0000 (22:13 +0300)
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>
Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:21:24 +0000 (10:21 -0800)
commitdadac81b1b86196fcc48fb87620403c4a7174f06
treefc19d44716915e55b237af3fb01a09f5be6d91c3
parent3f17da699431ec48540beabc55c54d4b5e66c8e7
[PATCH] fix kill_proc_info() vs fork() theoretical race

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?

copy_process() holds current->sighand.siglock, so we are safe
in CLONE_THREAD case, because current->sighand == p->sighand.

Otherwise, p->sighand is unlocked, the new process is already
visible to the find_task_by_pid(), but have a copy of parent's
'struct pid' in ->pids[PIDTYPE_TGID].

This means that __group_complete_signal() may hang while doing

do ... while (next_thread() != p)

We can solve this problem if we reverse these 2 attach_pid()s:

attach_pid() does wmb()

group_send_sig_info() calls spin_lock(), which
provides a read barrier. // Yes ?

I don't think we can hit this race in practice, but still.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
kernel/fork.c