[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100618210801.61B4540162@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
I think you're right. I can't see what would prevent that race.
So for_each_process and do_each_thread are safe only under
read_lock(&tasklist_lock) and while_each_thread is only safe under
either that or siglock. (Also a few places using next_thread in
similar loops outside those macros.)
Perhaps we could move those del's from __unhash_process to
__put_task_struct (or just delayed_put_task_struct?) and then
they wouldn't need to be rculist.h calls after all. But we
would a need careful audit to figure out the assumptions about
being on the list meaning not reaped yet.
I think de_thread() in exec-by-nonleader is the only case where this
can happen, right? So then perhaps we could make it call release_task
only via call_rcu?
Thanks,
Roland
--
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