3.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

commit c0c1439541f5305b57a83d599af32b74182933fe upstream.

selinux_setprocattr() does ptrace_parent(p) under task_lock(p),
but task_struct->alloc_lock doesn't pin ->parent or ->ptrace,
this looks confusing and triggers the "suspicious RCU usage"
warning because ptrace_parent() does rcu_dereference_check().

And in theory this is wrong, spin_lock()->preempt_disable()
doesn't necessarily imply rcu_read_lock() we need to access
the ->parent.

Reported-by: Evan McNabb <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 security/selinux/hooks.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
+++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c

@@ -5523,11 +5523,11 @@ static int selinux_setprocattr(struct ta
 		/* Check for ptracing, and update the task SID if ok.
 		   Otherwise, leave SID unchanged and fail. */
 		ptsid = 0;
-		task_lock(p);
+		rcu_read_lock();
 		tracer = ptrace_parent(p);
 		if (tracer)
 			ptsid = task_sid(tracer);
-		task_unlock(p);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
 
 		if (tracer) {
 			error = avc_has_perm(ptsid, sid, SECCLASS_PROCESS,