Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:56:05 +0100 From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Tiwei Bie <btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Finish the task 'Validate coredump format string' Message-ID: <20150323005605.GA6798@dft-labs.eu> In-Reply-To: <20150322102428.GZ2379@kib.kiev.ua> References: <1426946345-67889-1-git-send-email-btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn> <20150321200500.GC14650@dft-labs.eu> <20150322091853.GA89976@freebsd> <20150322101401.GH14650@dft-labs.eu> <20150322102428.GZ2379@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:24:28PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:14:01AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 05:19:40PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > > Sorry, I introduced a bug... allproc_lock could not be used to protect > > > the access to corefilename[]. > > > > > > > First off I committed the code, so the fault is on me. > > > > > Because, sysctl_kern_corefile() could be called very early: > > > > > [..] > > > That is to say, when the tunable `kern.corefile' is set in loader.conf, > > > sysctl_kern_corefile() will be called as the priority of (SI_SUB_KMEM, > > > SI_ORDER_FIRST). > > > > > > At this time, allproc_lock is not initialized. > > > > > > I couldn't find a proper existing lock for this task. Maybe a dedicated > > > lock needs to be created. And initialize it together with sysctlmemlock: > > > > > [..] > > > Or maybe sysctlmemlock could be used, which is only acuqired when > > > req.oldlen > PAGE_SIZE. > > > > > > > > > > I was somehow convinced that tunables are dealt with other code. > > > > If such sysctl handler is also called for tunables, the kernel should > > pass a flag or some other indicator so that the function knows it is > > dealing with a tunable and that would avoid locking and thus solve the > > problem. > > > > I'm wondering if we should go a little bit further and get rid of > > static char corefilename[MAXPATHLEN] > > > > and have a static char *corefilename instead. > Accessing the array through the pointer dereference is micro-pessimization, > as well as having to maintain metadata for the malloced memory, isn't it ? > Having this dynamically allocated opens up a way to set such path per-jail, which may be a desirable feature. Also gets rid of a 1024 bytes table. > > > > A dedicated sysinit func could fetch and validate the tunable, if any. > > If no tunable was provided it would alloc memory for the default. > > Or you could move initialization of the sx in question earlier. -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150323005605.GA6798>