lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: route cache DoS testing and softirqs
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:07:12AM +0000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> btw, the set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) before
> kthread_should_stop seems overkill w.r.t. smp locking, plus the code is
> written in the wrong way around, all set_current_state are in the wrong
> place. It's harmless but I cleaned up that bit as well.

I think set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) before kthread_should_stop()
_is_ required, otherwise kthread_stop can fail to destroy a kthread.


kthread_stop does:

1. kthread_stop_info.k = k;
2. wake_up_process(k);

and if ksoftirqd were to do :

a. while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
b. __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
c. schedule();
}


There is a (narrow) possibility here that a) happens _after_ 1) as well as
b) _after_ 2).

In such a case kthread_stop would have failed to wake up the kthread!


The same race is avoided if ksoftirqd does:

a. __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
b. while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
c. schedule();
d. __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
}

e. __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);

In this case, even if b) happens _after_ 1) and c) _after_ 2), schedule
simply returns immediately because task's state would have been set to
TASK_RUNNING by 2). It goes back to the kthread_should_stop() check and
exits!








--


Thanks and Regards,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs,
Bangalore, INDIA - 560017
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.144 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site