[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203222803.GA31756@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:28:03 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: do_each_pid_task() needs rcu lock
On 02/03, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
>
> > On 02/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >> "ftrace: use struct pid" commit 978f3a45d9499c7a447ca7615455cefb63d44165
> >> converted ftrace_pid_trace to "struct pid*". But we can't use
> >> do_each_pid_task() without rcu_read_lock() even if we know the pid
> >> itself can't go away (it was pinned in ftrace_pid_write). The exiting
> >> task can detach itself from this pid at any moment.
> >
> > Q: why do we use do_each_pid_task(PIDTYPE_PID) ? We can never have more
> > than 1 task in the loop. Perhaps,
>
> That is a bug in do_each_pid_task(PIDTYPE_PID).
> For ftrace we really want to grab all tasks with a given pid even
> in the crazy exec case.
Yes, I thought about de_thread() too. But we can't "fix" do_each_pid_task()
to avoid the race?
IOW. If we want to continue to trace the task with the same pid after
exec reliably, then we should do something like
void ftrace_transfer_trace(struct task_struct *leader)
{
mutex_lock(&ftrace_start_lock);
if (test_tsk_trace_trace(leader))
set_tsk_trace_trace(current);
mutex_unlock(&ftrace_start_lock);
}
and, in de_thread,
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
+
+ ftrace_transfer_trace(leader);
+
release_task(leader);
No?
(the above is not right of course, we can race with clear_ftrace_pid(),
just for illustration)
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