hich changes ->group_leader. In this case do_prlimit() may take the wrong lock, or (worse) ->group_leader may change between task_lock() and task_unlock(). Change sys_prlimit64() to take tasklist_lock when necessary. This is not nice, but I don't see a better fix for -stable. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250915120917.GA27702@redhat.com Fixes: 18c91bb2d872 ("prlimit: do not grab the tasklist_lock") Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Christian Brauner Cc: Jiri Slaby Cc: Mateusz Guzik Cc: Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/sys.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/sys.c +++ b/kernel/sys.c @@ -1682,6 +1682,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(prlimit64, pid_t, pid, u struct rlimit old, new; struct task_struct *tsk; unsigned int checkflags = 0; + bool need_tasklist; int ret; if (old_rlim) @@ -1708,8 +1709,25 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(prlimit64, pid_t, pid, u get_task_struct(tsk); rcu_read_unlock(); - ret = do_prlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim ? &new : NULL, - old_rlim ? &old : NULL); + need_tasklist = !same_thread_group(tsk, current); + if (need_tasklist) { + /* + * Ensure we can't race with group exit or de_thread(), + * so tsk->group_leader can't be freed or changed until + * read_unlock(tasklist_lock) below. + */ + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); + if (!pid_alive(tsk)) + ret = -ESRCH; + } + + if (!ret) { + ret = do_prlimit(tsk, resource, new_rlim ? &new : NULL, + old_rlim ? &old : NULL); + } + + if (need_tasklist) + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); if (!ret && old_rlim) { rlim_to_rlim64(&old, &old64);[PATCH 6.1 085/168] kernel/sys.c: fix the racy usage of task_lock(tsk->group_leader) in sys_prlimit64() pathsGreg Kroah-Hartman undefinedstable@vger.kernel.org undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefined undefinedŽ#ƒ¥N