[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A923403.6010201@ct.jp.nec.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:32:35 +0900
From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix race copy_process() vs de_thread()
Roland McGrath wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow the problem scenario you are citing.
>
> The thread in copy_process() will return -ERESTARTNOINTR
> after calling cleanup_signal(), which does properly decrement
> sig->count to return it to the state before the copy_process() call.
> Then this thread will get to signal handling, dequeue its SIGKILL from
> zap_other_threads(), and die itself. When it's finally reaped, by itself
> in exit_notify(), or by de_thread() in the case of a replaced group_leader,
> the normal __exit_signal() will do that group_exit_task logic.
>
> What part of this sequence fails to occur in your tests?
The point is that de_thread() waits until other thread calls wake_up_process().
In __exit_signal() when sig->count == 2, the thread calls wake_up_process(),
and then de_thread() will continue. However if another thread is during
copy_process(), the sig->count is incremented at copy_signal(). That makes
no wake_up_process().
The scenario flow is like this;
thread A thread B thread C sig->count
| | | 3
clone() exec() | |
copy_process() de_thread() | |
copy_signal() | | 4
| zap | 4
KILL | KILL 4
| | __exit_signal() 3 no wake up
clean_signal() | 2 no wake up
| | during copy_process()
exit |
never wake up
thanks,
Hiroshi
--
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