[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110902140015.GA31530@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 16:00:15 +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, neilb@...e.de, paul@...lmenage.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: +
cgroups-more-safe-tasklist-locking-in-cgroup_attach_proc.patch
added to -mm tree
Forgot to mention, sorry...
That said, I believe the patch is correct and should fix the problem.
On 09/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > From: Ben Blum <bblum@...rew.cmu.edu>
> >
> > Fix unstable tasklist locking in cgroup_attach_proc.
> >
> > According to this thread - https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/27/243 - RCU is
> > not sufficient to guarantee the tasklist is stable w.r.t. de_thread and
> > exit. Taking tasklist_lock for reading, instead of rcu_read_lock, ensures
> > proper exclusion.
>
> I still think we should avoid the global lock.
>
> In any case, with tasklist or siglock,
>
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > if (!thread_group_leader(leader)) {
> > /*
> > * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may strip
> > @@ -2036,7 +2036,7 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cg
> > * throw this task away and try again (from cgroup_procs_write);
> > * this is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
> > */
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > retval = -EAGAIN;
>
> this check+comment becomes completely pointless and imho very confusing.
>
> 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