[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191015144356.GA16978@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:43:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Christian Kellner <christian@...lner.me>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pidfd: verify task is alive when printing fdinfo
On 10/15, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> +static inline bool task_alive(struct pid *pid)
> +{
> + bool alive = true;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + if (!pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID))
> + alive = false;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return alive;
> +}
Well, the usage of rcu_read_lock/unlock looks confusing to me...
I mean, this helper does not need rcu lock at all. Except
rcu_dereference_check() will complain.
static inline bool task_alive(struct pid *pid)
{
bool alive;
/* shut up rcu_dereference_check() */
rcu_lock_acquire(&rcu_lock_map);
alive = !!pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID));
rcu_lock_release(&rcu_lock_map);
return alive;
}
looks more clear imo.
But in fact I'd suggest to simply use !hlist_empty(&pid->tasks[PIDTYPE_PID])
in pidfd_show_fdinfo() and do not add a new helper.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists