Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Prevent UAF in proc_cpuset_show()

[Waiman Long]

On 6/23/24 02:18, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > …
> > > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > …
> > > > @@ -5051,10 +5066,12 @@ int proc_cpuset_show(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > > >        if (!buf)
> > > >            goto out;
> > > >
> > > > +    mutex_lock(&cpuset_mutex);
> > > >        css = task_get_css(tsk, cpuset_cgrp_id);
> > > >        retval = cgroup_path_ns(css->cgroup, buf, PATH_MAX,
> > > >                    current->nsproxy->cgroup_ns);
> > > >        css_put(css);
> > > > +    mutex_unlock(&cpuset_mutex);
> > > …
> > >
> > > Under which circumstances would you become interested to apply a statement
> > > like “guard(mutex)(&cpuset_mutex);”?
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc4/source/include/linux/mutex.h#L196
> > A mutex guard will be more appropriate if there is an error exit case that needs to be handled.
> Lock guards can help to reduce and improve source code another bit,
> can't they?

For simple lock critical section, there isn't too much difference in 
term of readability between using lock guard and normal lock/unlock 
call. If there are multiple exit points in the critical section, lock 
guard can help to simplify the code. For those situations, I will 
certain try to use lock guard.

Another reason that I go with normal lock/unlock is that none of the 
cpuset_mutex lock/unlock sites in cpuset.c has used lock guard yet and 
there is no good reason in introduce something different from other call 
sites.

Cheers,
Longman