On 16.03.2015 17:07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 03/16, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:

+/**
+ * set_mm_exe_file - change a reference to the mm's executable file
+ *
+ * This changes mm's executale file (shown as symlink /proc/[pid]/exe).
+ *
+ * Main users are mmput(), sys_execve() and sys_prctl(PR_SET_MM_MAP/EXE_FILE).
+ * Callers prevent concurrent invocations: in mmput() nobody alive left,
+ * in execve task is single-threaded, prctl holds mmap_sem exclusively.
+ */
  void set_mm_exe_file(struct mm_struct *mm, struct file *new_exe_file)
  {
+       struct file *old_exe_file = rcu_dereference_protected(mm->exe_file,
+                       !atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) || current->in_execve ||
+                       lock_is_held(&mm->mmap_sem));
+
        if (new_exe_file)
                get_file(new_exe_file);
-       if (mm->exe_file)
-               fput(mm->exe_file);
-       mm->exe_file = new_exe_file;
+       rcu_assign_pointer(mm->exe_file, new_exe_file);
+       if (old_exe_file)
+               fput(old_exe_file);
  }

Yes, I think this is correct, __fput() does call_rcu(file_free_rcu). And
much better than the new lock ;)

Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>



So I think the patch is fine, but personally I dislike the "prctl holds
mmap_sem exclusively" and rcu_dereference_protected().

I mean, I think we can do another cleanup on top of this change.

        1. set_mm_exe_file() should be called by exit/exec only, so
           it should use

                rcu_dereference_protected(mm->exe_file,
                                        atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) <= 1);

        2. prctl() should not use it, it can do

           get_file(new_exe);
           old_exe = xchg(&mm->exe_file);
           if (old_exe)
                fput(old_exe);

I think smp_mb() is required before xchg() or
probably this stuff should be hidden inside yet another magic RCU macro
( with two screens of comments =)


        3. and we can remove down_write(mmap_sem) from prctl paths.

           Actually we can do this even without xchg() above, but we might
           want to kill MMF_EXE_FILE_CHANGED and test_and_set_bit() check.

What do you think?

Oleg.



--
Konstantin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to