[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110815190935.GA17589@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:09:35 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"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 08/15, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> de_thread can change the group_leader of a thread_group, and release_task can
> remove a non-leader while leaving the rest of the thread_group intact. So
> any while_each_thread() loop needs some extra care to ensure that it doesn't
> loop infinitely, because the "head" that it is looking for might not be there
> any more.
> Maybe there are other rules that ensure this can never happen, but they sure
> aren't obvious to me (i.e. if you know them - please tell ;-)
No, I don't know ;)
And note also that if g != leader, then while_each_thread(g, t) can hang
simply because g exits. I am still trying to invent something simple to
fix while_each_thread-under-rcu.
This looks possible, but I am starting to think that, say, zap_threads()
needs locking anyway. With any fix I can imagine, it can miss a thread
we should care about.
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