lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + cgroups-more-safe-tasklist-locking-in-cgroup_attach_proc.patch added to -mm tree
Forgot to mention, sorry...

That said, I believe the patch is correct and should fix the problem.

On 09/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > From: Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu>
> >
> > Fix unstable tasklist locking in cgroup_attach_proc.
> >
> > According to this thread - https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/27/243 - RCU is
> > not sufficient to guarantee the tasklist is stable w.r.t. de_thread and
> > exit. Taking tasklist_lock for reading, instead of rcu_read_lock, ensures
> > proper exclusion.
>
> I still think we should avoid the global lock.
>
> In any case, with tasklist or siglock,
>
> > - rcu_read_lock();
> > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > if (!thread_group_leader(leader)) {
> > /*
> > * a race with de_thread from another thread's exec() may strip
> > @@ -2036,7 +2036,7 @@ int cgroup_attach_proc(struct cgroup *cg
> > * throw this task away and try again (from cgroup_procs_write);
> > * this is "double-double-toil-and-trouble-check locking".
> > */
> > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > retval = -EAGAIN;
>
> this check+comment becomes completely pointless and imho very confusing.
>
> Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-02 16:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site