[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131206155238.GA6676@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:52:38 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
William Dauchy <wdauchy@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, "Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>,
azurIt <azurit@...ox.sk>, Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix race between oom kill and task exit
On 12/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> And this is risky. For example, 1/4 depends on (at least) another patch
> I sent in preparation for this change, commit 81907739851
> "kernel/fork.c:copy_process(): don't add the uninitialized
> child to thread/task/pid lists", perhaps on something else.
Hmm. not too much actually, I re-checked v3.10:kernel/copy_process.c.
Yes, list_add(thread_node)) in copy_process() can add the new thread
with the wrong pids, but somehow I forgot that list_add(thread_group)
in v3.10 has the same problem, so this probably doesn't matter and
we can safely backport this change.
> So personally I'd prefer to simply send the workaround for stable.
Yes, anyway, bacause I will sleep better ;)
But OK, if you think it would be better to mark 1-4 series I sent
for stable - I won't argue.
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