[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190719161404.GA24170@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:14:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] pidfd: fix a race in setting exit_state for pidfd
polling
it seems that I missed something else...
On 07/17, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>
> @@ -1156,10 +1157,11 @@ static int wait_task_zombie(struct wait_opts *wo, struct task_struct *p)
> ptrace_unlink(p);
>
> /* If parent wants a zombie, don't release it now */
> - state = EXIT_ZOMBIE;
> + p->exit_state = EXIT_ZOMBIE;
> if (do_notify_parent(p, p->exit_signal))
> - state = EXIT_DEAD;
> - p->exit_state = state;
> + p->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD;
> +
> + state = p->exit_state;
> write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
why do you think we also need to change wait_task_zombie() ?
pidfd_poll() only needs the exit_state != 0 check, we know that it
is not zero at this point. Why do we need to change exit_state before
do_notify_parent() ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists