[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081107162101.GA2178@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 17:21:01 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, adobriyan@...il.com,
Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] account_group_exec_runtime: fix the racy usage of
->signal
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> Compile tested.
>
> Unlike other similar routines, account_group_exec_runtime() could be
> called "implicitly" after exit_notify(). This means we can race with
> the parent doing release_task(), we can't just check ->signal != NULL.
>
> Take ->siglock to make sure ->signal can't go away.
>
> This is the minimal fix, with this patch we don't need need get/put cpu,
> and I think we should uninline this function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>
> --- K-28/kernel/sched_stats.h~A_G_E_R_FIX 2008-11-07 17:32:02.000000000 +0100
> +++ K-28/kernel/sched_stats.h 2008-11-07 17:44:39.000000000 +0100
> @@ -351,10 +351,12 @@ static inline void account_group_exec_ru
> unsigned long long ns)
> {
> struct signal_struct *sig;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> - sig = tsk->signal;
> - if (unlikely(!sig))
> + if (unlikely(!lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)))
> return;
i think this will lock up: the signal lock must not nest inside the rq
lock, and these accounting functions are called from within the
scheduler.
Ingo
--
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