lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Possible race between cgroup_attach_proc and de_thread, and questionable code in de_thread.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:51:19 +0200 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 07/28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:08:13AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree. It also requires - by virtue of the use of while_each_thread() -
> > > that 'g' remains on the list that 't' is walking along.
> >
> > Doesn't the following code in the loop body deal with this possibilty?
> >
> > /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */
> > if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD)
> > goto unlock;
>
> This code is completely wrong even if while_each_thread() was fine.
>
> I sent the patch but it was ignored.
>
> [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break()
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127688790019041
>
> Oleg.


I agree with that patch.
RCU only protects a task_struct until release_task() is called (which
removes it from the task list).

So holding rcu_lock doesn't stop put_task_struct from freeing the memory
unless we *know* that release_task hasn't been called. This is exactly that
pid_alive() tests.


I must say that handling of task_struct seems to violate the law of least
surprise a little to often for my taste. Maybe it is just a difficult
problem and it needs a complex solution - but it would be really nice if it
were a bit simpler :-(

NeilBrown


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-15 02:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans