[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100208132101.GA7129@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:21:01 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update comment on find_task_by_pid_ns
On 02/08, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> [PATCH] Update comment on find_task_by_pid_ns
>
> Caller of find_task_by_vpid() and find_task_by_pid_ns() needs to call
> rcu_read_lock() rather than read_lock(&tasklist_lock) because find_pid_ns()
> uses RCU primitives but spinlock does not prevent RCU callback if preemptive
> RCU ( CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU ) is enabled.
I agree with the patch, but the changelog looks a bit confusing to me.
Perhaps this is just me, though.
tasklist does protect the task and its pid, it can't go away. The problem
is that find_pid_ns() itself is unsafe without rcu lock, it can race with
copy_process()->free_pid(any_pid).
IOW, if we change copy_process()
--- kernel/fork.c
+++ kernel/fork.c
@@ -1304,8 +1304,11 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
return p;
bad_fork_free_pid:
- if (pid != &init_struct_pid)
+ if (pid != &init_struct_pid) {
+ read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
free_pid(pid);
+ read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
+ }
bad_fork_cleanup_io:
if (p->io_context)
exit_io_context(p);
then find_task_by_pid_ns/etc could be used under tasklist safely even
with PREEMPT_RCU.
In any case, I think the patch is nice.
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