[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090917210806.GA31441@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:08:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
menage@...gle.com, bblum@...gle.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, matthltc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: cgrooups && 2.6.32 -mm merge plans
On 09/17, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:15:16 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 09/15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > #cgroups-add-functionality-to-read-write-lock-clone_thread-forking-per-threadgroup.patch: Oleg conniptions
> > > cgroups-add-functionality-to-read-write-lock-clone_thread-forking-per-threadgroup.patch
> > > cgroups-add-functionality-to-read-write-lock-clone_thread-forking-per-threadgroup-fix.patch
> > > cgroups-add-ability-to-move-all-threads-in-a-process-to-a-new-cgroup-atomically.patch
> > >
> > > Merge after checking with Oleg.
> >
> > Well. I think these patches are buggy :/
> >
>
> Well that's never prevented us from merging stuff before.
>
> Thanks, I'll disable the patches for now. Do we have a grip on what's
> wrong and what needs to be done to fix things?
Afaics, ->threadgroup_fork_lock doesn't really work, we can race with exec.
list_for_each_entry_rcu() loops in these patches are not safe.
And in fact, personally I dislike even atomic_inc(&sighand->count). Just
consider sys_unshare(CLONE_SIGHAND). Yes, this code is a joke, but still.
Sadly, I don't have any ideas how to fix this... I'd wish I had a time
to at least try to find the solution ;)
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