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.
Also, update_rlimit_cpu() is not safe without tasklist / sighand-check.
We can probably change this code to rely on rcu.
Oleg.
