linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memory-failure: use rcu lock instead of tasklist_lock when collect

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ce28f147-8c97-36d9-3b5a-bb7a1ac3130f@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:36:56 +0800
From:   Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: memory-failure: use rcu lock instead of
 tasklist_lock when collect_procs()



在 2023/8/27 4:28, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 09:46:53AM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>> " the ``task_struct`` object is freed only after one or more
>> grace periods elapse, with the help of call_rcu(), which is invoked via
>> put_task_struct_rcu_user(). "
>>
>> Combined with the code,when the task exits：
>>
>> release_task()
>> 	__exit_signal()
>> 		__unhash_process()
>> 			list_del_rcu(&p->tasks)
>> 	
>> 	put_task_struct_rcu_user()
>> 		call_rcu(&task->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct);
>> 			
>> delayed_put_task_struct()
>> 	put_task_struct()
>> 		if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr, &t->usage))
>> 			__put_task_struct()
>> 				free_task()
>> 	
>> The code is consistent with the description in the document.
>>
>> According to this understanding, i think for_each_process() under the
>> protection of rcu locl is safe, that is, task_struct in the list will not be
>> destroyed, and get_task_struct() is also safe.
> 
> Aha!  This is different from the usual pattern.  What I'm used to seeing
> is:
> 
> if (refcount_sub_and_test()) {
> 	list_del_rcu();
> 	rcu_free();
> }
> 
> and then on the read side you need a refcount_inc_not_zero(), which we
> didn't have here.  Given this new information you've found, I withdraw
> my objection.  It'd be nice to include some of this analysis in an
> updated changelog (and maybe improved documentation for tasklist?).

OK, commit message and changelog have been updated, and a new patch 
version v3 has been sent.

Thanks,
Tong.

> 
> .