[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110815180155.GT2389@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:01:55 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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
If it helps...
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanx, Paul
--
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