Re: [PATCH 5/6] core: allow setrlimit to non-current tasks

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Sep 01 2009 - 12:26:38 EST

Sorry, can't read these series today. Will try tomorrow.

But at first glance some parts looks suspicious to me,

On 08/31, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> @@ -1244,16 +1244,27 @@ int setrlimit(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int resource,
> if (new_rlim->rlim_cur > new_rlim->rlim_max)
> return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* protect tsk->signal and tsk->sighand from disappearing */
> + read_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);

Why _irq? We can take tasklist_lock for reading without disabling irqs.

And. Unless I misread the patch, update_rlimit_cpu() is called before
read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock), but update_rlimit_cpu() does
spin_unlock_irq(->siglock) and restores interrupts.

> + if (!tsk->signal || !tsk->sighand) {

Please don't check !tsk->signal, !tsk->sighand is enough. If
we have ->sighand != NULL (under lock) ->signal must be valid.

But I dislike the fact the patch uses tasklist_lock. Can't
lock_task_sighand() work for you? (of course, in this case
update_rlimit_cpu() should be updated too).

Once again, I didn't actually read this series yet, sorry.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at