On 08/14, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Okay, I've now managed to reproduce this locally. I added a bunch of
> debugging, and I think I understand what's going on. This warning is,
> actually, a false positive.
Sure. I mean that yes, this warning doesn't mean we already hit deadlock.
> get used recursively (the task_struct->alloc_lock), but they are
> separate instantiations ("task" is never "current").
Yes. But suppose that we have 2 tasks T1 and T2,
- T1 does ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, T2);
- T2 does ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH, T1);
at the same time. This can lead to the "real" deadlock, no?
> So Oleg's suggestion of removing the locking around the reading of
> ->comm is wrong since it really does need the lock.
Nothing bad can happen without the lock. Yes, printk() can print
some string "in between" if we race with set_task_comm() but this
is all.
BTW, set_task_comm()->wmb() and memset() should die. There are
not needed afaics, and the comment is misleading.
Oleg.
--
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/
