[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351376558.21585.1.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:22:38 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] freezer: change ptrace_stop/do_signal_stop to
use freezable_schedule()
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 19:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> try_to_freeze_tasks() and cgroup_freezer rely on scheduler locks
> to ensure that a task doing STOPPED/TRACED -> RUNNING transition
> can't escape freezing. This mostly works, but ptrace_stop() does
> not necessarily call schedule(), it can change task->state back to
> RUNNING and check freezing() without any lock/barrier in between.
>
> We could add the necessary barrier, but this patch changes
> ptrace_stop() and do_signal_stop() to use freezable_schedule().
> This fixes the race, freezer_count() and freezer_should_skip()
> carefully avoid the race.
>
> And this simplifies the code, try_to_freeze_tasks/update_if_frozen
> no longer need to use task_is_stopped_or_traced() checks with the
> non trivial assumptions. We can rely on the mechanism which was
> specially designed to mark the sleeping task as "frozen enough".
>
> v2: As Tejun pointed out, we can also change get_signal_to_deliver()
> and move try_to_freeze() up before 'relock' label.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
[...]
This is not the correct way to submit a change to stable. Please see
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Never attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists