[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110826151245.GA16243@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:12:45 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bblum@...rew.cmu.edu,
fweisbec@...il.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, paul@...lmenage.org,
tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: + cgroups-fix-ordering-of-calls-in-cgroup_attach_proc.patch
added to -mm tree
On 08/25, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> From: Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
>
> @@ -2135,14 +2135,17 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cg
> oldcgrp = task_cgroup_from_root(tsk, root);
> if (cgrp == oldcgrp)
> continue;
> - /* attach each task to each subsystem */
> - for_each_subsys(root, ss) {
> - if (ss->attach_task)
> - ss->attach_task(cgrp, tsk);
> - }
> /* if the thread is PF_EXITING, it can just get skipped. */
> retval = cgroup_task_migrate(cgrp, oldcgrp, tsk, true);
> - BUG_ON(retval != 0 && retval != -ESRCH);
> + if (retval == 0) {
> + /* attach each task to each subsystem */
> + for_each_subsys(root, ss) {
> + if (ss->attach_task)
> + ss->attach_task(cgrp, tsk);
> + }
Yes, I think this is what we need, the patch itself looks fine.
But this doesn't answer my another question. After that the code does
* step 4: do expensive, non-thread-specific subsystem callbacks.
ss->attach(ss, cgrp, oldcgrp, leader);
OK, non-thread-specific is nice, but how can this "leader" represent
the process?
It can be zombie (but still group_leader) even without any races.
Say, cpuset_attach() and mem_cgroup_move_task() need get_task_mm(p).
How this can work if the leader is dead?
Also. Even if we add the locking around while_each_thread() (btw,
we need this in any case), we can race with exec which can change
the leader. In this case this task_struct has nothing to do with
the process we are going to attach, at all.
And, ss->can_attach(leader) has the same problems, it seems.
And. Say, devcgroup_can_attach() checks CAP_SYS_ADMIN. This is
security check. Why it is enough to check the leader only? We are
going to attach all threads. OK, this is probably fine, and I never
understood why capable/creds are not per-process, but this looks
so strange.
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