[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120124110730.a3536647.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:07:30 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] fs, proc: Introduce /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children
entry v8
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:20:37 +0400
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> When we do checkpoint of a task we need to know the list of children
> the task, has but there is no easy and fast way to generate reverse
> parent->children chain from arbitrary <pid> (while a parent pid is
> provided in "PPid" field of /proc/<pid>/status).
>
> So instead of walking over all pids in the system (creating one big process
> tree in memory, just to figure out which children a task has) -- we add
> explicit /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children entry, because the kernel already has
> this kind of information but it is not yet exported.
>
> This is a first level children, not the whole process tree.
>
> v2:
> - Kame suggested to use a separated /proc/<pid>/children entry
> instead of poking /proc/<pid>/status
> - Andew suggested to use rcu facility instead of locking
> tasklist_lock
> - Tejun pointed that non-seekable seq file might not be
> enough for tasks with large number of children
>
> v3:
> - To be on a safe side use %lu format for pid_t printing
>
> v4:
> - New line get printed when sequence ends not at seq->stop,
> a nit pointed by Tejun
> - Documentation update
> - tasklist_lock is back, Oleg pointed that ->children list
> is actually not rcu-safe
>
> v5:
> - Oleg suggested to make /proc/<pid>/task/<tid>/children
> instead of global /proc/<pid>/children, which eliminates
> hardness related to threads and children migration, and
> allows patch to be a way simplier.
>
> v6:
> - Drop ptrace_may_access tests, pids are can be found anyway
> so nothing to protect here.
> - Update comments and docs, pointed by Oleg.
>
> v7:
> - Use get_pid over proc-pid directly, to simplify
> code, pointed by Oleg.
>
> v8:
> - Obtain a starting pid from the proc's inode directly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>From viewpoint I played with seq_file, yesterday.
> +static void *children_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
> +{
> + return get_children_pid(seq->private, NULL, *pos);
> +}
> +
> +static void *children_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos)
> +{
> + struct pid *pid = NULL;
> +
> + pid = get_children_pid(seq->private, v, *pos + 1);
> + if (!pid)
> + seq_printf(seq, "\n");
> + put_pid(v);
Because seq_printf() may fail. This seems dangeorus.
If seq_printf() fails and returns NULL, "\n" will not be
printed out and user land parser will go wrong.
I think all seq_printf() should be handled in ->show().
(And you can use seq_putc() for "\n".)
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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