[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:44:16 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Gargi Sharma <gs051095@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
julia.lawall@...6.fr, mingo@...nel.org, pasha.tatashin@...cle.com,
ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] pid: Replace pid bitmap implementation with IDR
API
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 13:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -240,17 +230,11 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct
> > > pid_namespace *pid_ns)
> > > *
> > > */
> > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > - nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, 1);
> > > - while (nr > 0) {
> > > - rcu_read_lock();
> > > -
> > > - task = pid_task(find_vpid(nr), PIDTYPE_PID);
> > > + nr = 2;
> > > + idr_for_each_entry_continue(&pid_ns->idr, pid, nr) {
> > > + task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > > if (task && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
> > > send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED,
> > > task);
> > > -
> > > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > > -
> > > - nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, nr);
> > > }
> > > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> >
> > Especially here. I don't think pidmap_lock is held. Is that IDR
> > iteration safe?
>
> Yes, this doesn't look right, we need rcu_read_lock() or pidmap_lock.
>
> And, we also need rcu_read_lock() for another reason, to protect
> "struct pid".
I think rcu_read_lock alone should do the trick, for both.
The IDR code specifically says that lookups are safe under just
the rcu_read_lock, and that only insertions and deletions need
a separate lock for synchronization.
Good catch.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists