Re: [PATCH] rlim in proc//status (2nd rev.)
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:33:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi Clifford,
>
> > +static inline char *task_rlim(struct task_struct *p, char *buffer)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + struct rlimit rlim[RLIM_NLIMITS];
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
> > + for (i=0; i > + rlim[i] = p->signal->rlim[i];
> > + unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> > + }
>
> lock_task_sighand is possible return NULL?
> if so, rlim is uninitialized when NULL.
hmm.. can p->sighand be NULL here? If so, there also is a problem in the
task_sig() function in the same file.
In fact that code is copy&paste from task_sig(). In fact I'm not even sure
if I actually need to lock anything to access p->signal->rlim.. I've
searched the kernel code a bit and it looks like most acesses to the rlimits
are done unlocked, which is no problem imo given the typical change-pattern
of this values..
anyone a clue on this issues?
yours,
- clifford
--
2B OR (NOT 2B) That is the question. The answer is FF.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] rlim in proc//status (2nd rev.)
Hi Clifford,
> +static inline char *task_rlim(struct task_struct *p, char *buffer)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct rlimit rlim[RLIM_NLIMITS];
> + int i;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
> + for (i=0; i + rlim[i] = p->signal->rlim[i];
> + unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
> + }
lock_task_sighand is possible return NULL?
if so, rlim is uninitialized when NULL.
- kosaki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] rlim in proc//status (2nd rev.)
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 02:36:59PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
> > + for (i=0; i > + rlim[i] = p->signal->rlim[i];
>
> I'm confused - where do you unlock_task_sighand()?
oh fsck! thanks for that pointer..
Here is a new version of the patch which solves this issue and the issues
adressed earlier in this thread by kosaki.
yours,
- clifford
Signed-off-by: Clifford Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux/fs/proc/array.c (revision 750)
+++ linux/fs/proc/array.c (revision 764)
@@ -239,6 +239,58 @@
}
}
+static char *rlim_names[RLIM_NLIMITS] = {
+ [RLIMIT_CPU]= "CPU",
+ [RLIMIT_FSIZE] = "FSize",
+ [RLIMIT_DATA] = "Data",
+ [RLIMIT_STACK] = "Stack",
+ [RLIMIT_CORE] = "Core",
+ [RLIMIT_RSS]= "RSS",
+ [RLIMIT_NPROC] = "NProc",
+ [RLIMIT_NOFILE] = "NoFile",
+ [RLIMIT_MEMLOCK]= "MemLock",
+ [RLIMIT_AS] = "AddrSpace",
+ [RLIMIT_LOCKS] = "Locks",
+ [RLIMIT_SIGPENDING] = "SigPending",
+ [RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE] = "MsgQueue",
+ [RLIMIT_NICE] = "Nice",
+ [RLIMIT_RTPRIO] = "RTPrio"
+};
+
+#if RLIM_NLIMITS != 15
+# error Value of RLIM_NLIMITS changed. \
+ Please update rlim_names in fs/proc/array.c
+#endif
+
+static inline char *task_rlim(struct task_struct *p, char *buffer)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ struct rlimit rlim[RLIM_NLIMITS];
+ int i;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) {
+ for (i=0; isignal->rlim[i];
+ unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags);
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ for (i=0; ihttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
