[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110729143254.GD3501@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:32:54 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] vfork: make it killable
On 07/29, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 18:32 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > static long clone_vfork_finish(struct task_struct *child,
> > struct completion *vfork_done, long pid)
> > {
> > - freezer_do_not_count();
> > - wait_for_completion(vfork_done);
> > - freezer_count();
> > + int killed = wait_for_completion_killable(vfork_done);
> > +
> > + if (killed) {
> > + struct completion *steal = xchg(&child->vfork_done, NULL);
> > + /* if we race with complete_vfork_done() we have to wait */
> > + if (unlikely(!steal))
> > + wait_for_completion(vfork_done);
> > +
> > + return -EINTR;
> > + }
>
> Hmm.. isn't this inherently racy anyway? Why go to the trouble of trying
> to handle this race at all?
Suppose the child does xchg() and sees vfork_done != NULL. In this
case the parent shouldn't return from do_fork() until the child
does complete(), this "struct completion" was allocated on parent's
stack.
OK, I am starting to agree this looks overcomplicated, task_lock()
can make the code look simpler (see 0/8).
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