[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111204154543.GA23805@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 16:45:43 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, gkurz@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][v2] Add reboot_pid_ns to handle the reboot syscall
On 12/04, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ struct pid_namespace {
> #endif
> gid_t pid_gid;
> int hide_pid;
> + int reboot;
> + spinlock_t reboot_lock;
> };
Well. I was thinking about the serialization too, but this
->reboot_lock asks for v3 imho ;)
First of all, do we really care? force_sig(SIGKILL, child_reaper)
can't race with itself, it does nothing if init is already killed.
So why it is important to protect pid_ns->reboot? Yes, it is possible
to change it again if two callers do sys_reboot() "at the same time".
But in this case we can't predict which caller wins anyway, so why
should we worry?
IOW. Say, we have the 2 tasks doing HALT and RESTART in parallel.
It is possible that HALT sets ->reboot and kills init first, then
RESTART changes ->reboot and the second force_sig() does nothing.
In this case we can simply pretend that RESTART wins and the dying
init kills HALT before it calls sys_reboot().
In any case. Even if you want to serialize, instead of adding the
new lock reboot_pid_ns() can simply do:
if (cmpxchg(&pid_ns->reboot, 0, reboot) != 0)
return -EBUSY;
this looks much simpler to me.
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