[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070327023559.y7gvoty7ksg4kw44@imap.linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:35:59 -0400
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: balbir@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix race between attach_task and cpuset_exit
Quoting Paul Jackson <pj@....com>:
> vatsa wrote:
>> Well, someone may have attached to this cpuset while we were waiting on the
>> mutex_lock(). So we need to do a atomic_read again to ensure it is still
>> unused.
>
> I don't see how this could happen. If we hold the task lock that now
> (thanks to your good work) guards this pointer, and if we decrement to
> zero the reference count on the cpuset to which it points and then
> -overwrite- this last remaining visible pointer to that cpuset with a
> pointer to a different cpuset, then aren't we guaranteed to be holding
> the last remaining reference to the old cpuset in our local variable,
> making it impossible for anyone else to attach to it in any way?
Yes, but the cpuset is not made invisible to userspace (in filesystem)
yet. So as cpuset_exit() discovers that cpuset B has zero refcount now
and blocks on mutex_lock(&manage_mutex) [ to do a check_for_release
later ], someone could have done a attach_task to that cpuset.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists