lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 27 May 2008 20:45:19 +0400
FromOleg Nesterov <>
SubjectRe: 2.6.26-rc4: RIP find_pid_ns+0x6b/0xa0
On 05/27, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > In theory find_pid() is not safe without rcu_read_lock() if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU.
> > But we have a lot of "read_lock(tasklist_lock) + find_pid()", this was legal
> > and documented. It was actually broken, but happened to work because read_lock()
> > implied rcu_read_lock().
> > 
> > Could you look at
> > 
> > 	[PATCH] fix tasklist + find_pid() with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > 	http://marc.info/?t=120162615300012
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > I am not sure this is the actual reason though, the race is very unlikely.
> 
> That is a *very* unlikely race, especially as that bad_fork_free_pid case 
> would only happen if pid_ns_prepare_proc() fails.

To be precise, this case also happens when fork() fails due to signal_pending().

But I agree, this race is pretty much theoretical.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-27 18:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2008