[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c768aae4-1c41-41ef-895d-33556b99dc15@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 22:13:52 -0500
From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: don't abuse
next_thread()
On 11/14/23 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Compile tested.
>
> Every lockless usage of next_thread() was wrong, bpf/task_iter.c is
> the last user and is no exception.
It would be great if you can give more information in the commit message
about why the usage of next_thread() is wrong in bpf/task_iter.c.
IIUC, some information is presented in :
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143112.GA31208@redhat.com/
Also, please add 'bpf' in the subject tag ([PATCH bpf 0/3]) to
make it clear the patch should be applied to bpf tree.
>
> Oleg.
> ---
>
> kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 29 +++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists