lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [path][rfc] add PR_DETACH prctl command
On 04/05, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>
> 04.04.2011 20:03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> I still haven't solved the problems with checking
>>> parent and checking ptrace, so ignore them for
>>> now (or give me the hints:)
>> Not sure I understand your question...
> I wonder how to check whether the child was
> reparented to init, and not is a child on init's
> subthread.

I don't understand the "and not is a child on init's subthread".
If the child was created by init's sub-thread, it is the child
of the whole thread group.

->real_parent points to thread, yes. But the parent is the whole
process, not thread. The only reason for this oddity is __WNOTHREAD.

> You suggested to check
> same_thread_group(real_parent, ns->child_reaper),

Yes. This means: our parent is the init process.

>>> + while_each_thread(me, p) {
>>> + if (!ptrace_reparented(p))
>>> + p->parent = pid_ns->child_reaper;
>>> + p->real_parent = pid_ns->child_reaper;
>> Eek. Even ignoring ptrace, this is weird. We change parent/real_parent,
>> but we do not do list_move_tail(sibling) until wait_task_detached() !
>> No, I think we should not do this even if this was correct. I'll try
>> to nack this in any case, even if there were no immediate problems ;)
>> IMHO, this is insane.
>>
>> But this is wrong. Well. Suppose that the caller of PR_DETACH exits
>> before the old parent does do_wait(). What /sbin/init (who is the new
>> parent) can do after it gets SIGCHLD? If can't see this zombie. Nor
>> the old parent can release this task due to ->detaching. Eventually
>> /sbin/init can reap it if it does, say, waitpid(-1), but still this
>> is wrong.
> No, the idea was like that: the old parent either wait()s or
> exits, then init became a "real" parent of that process, and
> reaps it immediately.

I understand this, but

> I think that's natural:

I strongly disagree, this is not natural. I mean, ->real_parent
and the head of ->sibling list should match each other.

For example. Ignoring other problems, you are doing list_move() in
do_wait() pathes. This happens to work now because everything is
protected by the global tasklist. But we are going to change the
locking, it should be per-process.

> If it exits,

If it exits, it notifies the new ->real_parent == init. init receives
SIGCHLD, but do_wait() can't see this process on ->children lists.

> its current parent
> have to either wait(), or exit. If it doesn't do so - zombie.

Indeed. And, if the old parent does wait(), this simply does
list_move_tail(p->sibling), a zombie won't be reaped. And nobody will
reap it, until init does waitpid(-1). This was my point, this is wrong.

>> Or. Suppose that the old parent exits after its child does PR_DETACH.
>> You changed forget_original_parent() but this is not enough, note that
>> find_new_reaper() can pick the live sub-thread. In this case the child
>> will be moved to init's ->children list, and after that we are changing
>> ->real_parent back.
> How? I think I prevented that with this:
> ---
>
> + p->detaching = 0;
> + continue;

Yes, thanks, I didn't notice "continue". But then this is wrong again.
This can race with wait_task_detached() called by our sub-thread, it
can clear ->detaching before we check it.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-05 17:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site