[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110814175119.GC2381@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:51:19 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible race between cgroup_attach_proc and de_thread, and
questionable code in de_thread.
On 07/28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:08:13AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > I disagree. It also requires - by virtue of the use of while_each_thread() -
> > that 'g' remains on the list that 't' is walking along.
>
> Doesn't the following code in the loop body deal with this possibilty?
>
> /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */
> if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD)
> goto unlock;
This code is completely wrong even if while_each_thread() was fine.
I sent the patch but it was ignored.
[PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break()
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127688790019041
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