[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006090830560.4506@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Salman <sqazi@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...x-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@...gle.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a race in pid generation that causes pids to be
reused immediately.
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Salman <sqazi@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > A program that repeatedly forks and waits is susceptible to having the
> > same pid repeated, especially when it competes with another instance of the
> > same program. This is really bad for bash implementation. Furthermore, many shell
> > scripts assume that pid numbers will not be used for some length of time.
> >
> > Thanks to Ted Tso for the key ideas of this implementation.
>
> Looks rather interesting. (Cleanliness-wise i'd suggest to split out the while
> loop into a helper function.)
I have to say that usually I can look at a patch and see what it does.
This time I had absolutely no clue.
There was a whole big context missing: that original load of "last_pid"
into "last" at the top of the function, far outside the patch. And in
this case I don't think splitting out the trivial cmpxchg() loop would
help that problem - that would just make the "load original" part of the
big picture be even further away from the final "replace if same" part,
and I think _that_ is a much more critical part of the subtleties there.
So I had to read the patch _and_ go read the code it patched, in order to
at all understand what it did. I think the patch explanation should have
done it, and I also think this would need a bit comment at the top.
[ In fact, I'd argue that the _old_ code would have needed a big comment
at the top about last_pid usage, but i somebody had done that, they'd
probably also have seen the race while explaning how the code worked ;]
So having looked at the patch and the code, I agree with the patch, but
I'd like some more explanation to go with it.
[ Or Ted's version: as mentioned, I don't think the complexity is actually
in the final cmpxchg loop itself, but in the bigger picture, so I don't
think the differences between Ted's and Salman's versions are that big ]
Linus
--
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