[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070511202102.GA155@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:21:02 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Freezer: Read PF_BORROWED_MM in a nonracy way
On 05/11, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:36:25 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> > static inline int is_user_space(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > - return p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + task_lock(p);
> > + ret = p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM);
> > + task_unlock(p);
> > + return ret;
> > }
>
> The whole function is racy, isn't it? I mean, the condition which it is
> testing can go from true->false or false->true at any instant after this
> function returns its now-wrong value.
>
> iow, callers of this function need to to something to prevent the expression
> `p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM);' from changing value _anyway_. In
> which case the new locking is not needed?
freeze_processes() first freezes user-space tasks only, then kernel threads.
Without task_lock() we can miss PF_BORROWED_MM and count the kernel thread
(which is doing use_mm()) as a user space process. This means it will be
frozen prematurely.
true->false means daemonize() or do_exit(), seems harmless.
false->true means exec from kernel space. That is why FREEZER_KERNEL_THREADS
in fact means all tasks, not only kernel threads.
Oleg.
-
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