[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080527164519.GA826@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:45:19 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc4: RIP find_pid_ns+0x6b/0xa0
On 05/27, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > In theory find_pid() is not safe without rcu_read_lock() if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU.
> > But we have a lot of "read_lock(tasklist_lock) + find_pid()", this was legal
> > and documented. It was actually broken, but happened to work because read_lock()
> > implied rcu_read_lock().
> >
> > Could you look at
> >
> > [PATCH] fix tasklist + find_pid() with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > http://marc.info/?t=120162615300012
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I am not sure this is the actual reason though, the race is very unlikely.
>
> That is a *very* unlikely race, especially as that bad_fork_free_pid case
> would only happen if pid_ns_prepare_proc() fails.
To be precise, this case also happens when fork() fails due to signal_pending().
But I agree, this race is pretty much theoretical.
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