| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090629230841.GA13024@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:08:41 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ratan Nalumasu <rnalumasu@...il.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [rfc] do not place sub-threads on task_struct->children list
(change subject)
On 06/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/25, Ratan Nalumasu wrote:
> >
> > I understood it in the _past_, but somehow forgotten the details--I have a
> > vague recollection that there was some special handling for the group leader
> > stuff.
> > However, to reconfirm, we believe that the
> > following condition in eligible_child() is good, right:
> > ===
> > if ((wo->wo_flags & __WNOTHREAD) && wo->child_wait.private !=
> > p->parent)
> > return 0;
> > ===
> >
> > I will run it on my test machines and see if everything looks good.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> The only problem it uses ->parent, this conflicts with other out-of-tree
> ptrace changes...
>
> Roland, do you think we should do this change now or later?
>
> If now, then we can also do another nice optimization, and it is for free.
> See the untested patch below. It conflicts with those patches too, but
> in both cases fixups are trivial.
See the updated patch below, slightly tested.
Changes: s/reparent_thread/reparent_leader/ and move it out of loop.
We still have to check task_detached() in reparent_leader(), we can
find EXIT_DEAD leader.
Do you see any problems?
Oleg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[PATCH] do not place sub-threads on task_struct->children list
Currently we add sub-threads to ->real_parent->children list. This
buys nothing but slows down do_wait().
With this patch ->children contains only main threads (group leaders).
The only complication is that forget_original_parent() should iterate
over sub-threads by hand.
>From now do_wait_thread() can never see task_detached() && !EXIT_DEAD
tasks, we can remove this check (and we can unify do_wait_thread() and
ptrace_do_wait()).
This change can confuse the optimistic search inmm_update_next_owner(),
but this is fixable and minor.
Perhaps badness() and oom_kill_process() should be updated, but they
should be fixed in any case.
---
kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
kernel/exit.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
--- WAIT/kernel/fork.c~3_CHILDREN_NO_THREADS 2009-06-30 00:57:16.000000000 +0200
+++ WAIT/kernel/fork.c 2009-06-30 00:57:50.000000000 +0200
@@ -1245,7 +1245,6 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
}
if (likely(p->pid)) {
- list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
tracehook_finish_clone(p, clone_flags, trace);
if (thread_group_leader(p)) {
@@ -1257,6 +1256,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
p->signal->tty = tty_kref_get(current->signal->tty);
attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID, task_pgrp(current));
attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_SID, task_session(current));
+ list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
__get_cpu_var(process_counts)++;
}
--- WAIT/kernel/exit.c~3_CHILDREN_NO_THREADS 2009-06-30 00:57:16.000000000 +0200
+++ WAIT/kernel/exit.c 2009-06-30 00:57:50.000000000 +0200
@@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static void __unhash_process(struct task
detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
detach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_SID);
+ list_del_init(&p->sibling);
list_del_rcu(&p->tasks);
__get_cpu_var(process_counts)--;
}
list_del_rcu(&p->thread_group);
- list_del_init(&p->sibling);
}
/*
@@ -736,12 +736,9 @@ static struct task_struct *find_new_reap
/*
* Any that need to be release_task'd are put on the @dead list.
*/
-static void reparent_thread(struct task_struct *father, struct task_struct *p,
+static void reparent_leader(struct task_struct *father, struct task_struct *p,
struct list_head *dead)
{
- if (p->pdeath_signal)
- group_send_sig_info(p->pdeath_signal, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, p);
-
list_move_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
if (task_detached(p))
@@ -771,7 +768,7 @@ static void reparent_thread(struct task_
static void forget_original_parent(struct task_struct *father)
{
- struct task_struct *p, *n, *reaper;
+ struct task_struct *g, *p, *n, *reaper;
LIST_HEAD(dead_children);
exit_ptrace(father);
@@ -779,13 +776,20 @@ static void forget_original_parent(struc
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
reaper = find_new_reaper(father);
- list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &father->children, sibling) {
- p->real_parent = reaper;
- if (p->parent == father) {
- BUG_ON(task_ptrace(p));
- p->parent = p->real_parent;
- }
- reparent_thread(father, p, &dead_children);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(g, n, &father->children, sibling) {
+ p = g;
+ do {
+ p->real_parent = reaper;
+ if (p->parent == father) {
+ BUG_ON(task_ptrace(p));
+ p->parent = p->real_parent;
+ }
+ if (p->pdeath_signal)
+ group_send_sig_info(p->pdeath_signal,
+ SEND_SIG_NOINFO, p);
+ } while_each_thread(g, p);
+
+ reparent_leader(father, g, &dead_children);
}
write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
@@ -1533,14 +1537,9 @@ static int do_wait_thread(struct wait_op
struct task_struct *p;
list_for_each_entry(p, &tsk->children, sibling) {
- /*
- * Do not consider detached threads.
- */
- if (!task_detached(p)) {
- int ret = wait_consider_task(wo, tsk, 0, p);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- }
+ int ret = wait_consider_task(wo, tsk, 0, p);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
}
return 0;
--
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