[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312051521540.7717@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:23:55 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@...il.com>,
"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] introduce for_each_thread() to replace the buggy
while_each_thread()
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Minor: should the definitions of thread_{head,node} be annotated with
> > __rcu for users of CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER?
>
> Perhaps. And perhaps task_struct->tasks. And perhaps we should add
> rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held(tasklist) || lockdep_is_held(siglock)
> into for_each_process/thead.
>
> But lets do this later. At least we should avoid the false positives.
>
Ok, thanks. I think anything we can do to catch these cases of
unprotected usage even with some debugging options like
CONFIG_SPARSE_RCU_POINTER and CONFIG_LOCKDEP will help given the number of
places you found that were doing it incorrectly already.
--
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