[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221207143445.GA4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 06:34:45 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rcu-tasks: Fix synchronize_rcu_tasks() VS
zap_pid_ns_processes()
On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 05:49:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/30, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > 2) I keep thinking zap_pid_ns_processes() should be changed so that
> > after it sends SIGKILL to all of the relevant processes to not wait,
>
> At least I think it should not wait for the tasks injected into this ns.
>
> Because this looks like a kernel bug even if we forget about this deadlock.
>
> Say we create a task P using clone(CLONE_NEWPID), then inject a task T into
> P's pid-namespace via setns/fork. This make the process P "unkillable", it
> will hang in zap_pid_ns_processes() "forever" until T->parent reaps a zombie
> task T killed by P.
Given that this is not the first time that Tasks Trace RCU has been
involved in a deadlock involving this exit path, I could certainly get
behind this approach. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists