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
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 04:00:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Forgot to mention, sorry...
>
> That said, I believe the patch is correct and should fix the problem.

Thanks!

But I don't think the check becomes pointless? If a sub-thread execs
right before read_lock(&tasklist_lock) (but after the find_task_by_vpid
in attach_task_by_pid), that causes the case that the comment refers to.

-- Ben

>
> 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 16:19    [W:0.371 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site