@@ -1195,12 +1195,18 @@ static int unshare_sighand(struct task_struct *me)
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * User space can randomly change their names anyway, so locking for readers
+ * doesn't make sense. For writers, locking is probably necessary, as a race
+ * condition could lead to long-term mixed results.
+ * The strscpy_pad() in __set_task_comm() can ensure that the task comm is
+ * always NUL-terminated. Therefore the race condition between reader and writer
+ * is not an issue.
+ */
char *__get_task_comm(char *buf, size_t buf_size, struct task_struct *tsk)
{
- task_lock(tsk);
/* Always NUL terminated and zero-padded */
strscpy_pad(buf, tsk->comm, buf_size);
- task_unlock(tsk);
return buf;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__get_task_comm);
@@ -1096,9 +1096,9 @@ struct task_struct {
/*
* executable name, excluding path.
*
- * - normally initialized setup_new_exec()
+ * - normally initialized begin_new_exec()
* - access it with [gs]et_task_comm()
- * - lock it with task_lock()
+ * - lock it with task_lock() for writing
*/
char comm[TASK_COMM_LEN];
Quoted from Linus [0]: Since user space can randomly change their names anyway, using locking was always wrong for readers (for writers it probably does make sense to have some lock - although practically speaking nobody cares there either, but at least for a writer some kind of race could have long-term mixed results Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wivfrF0_zvf+oj6==Sh=-npJooP8chLPEfaFV0oNYTTBA@mail.gmail.com [0] Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Cc: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> Cc: Matus Jokay <matus.jokay@stuba.sk> --- fs/exec.c | 10 ++++++++-- include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)