[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Hmm.. "notify_parent()".

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> "notify_parent()" uses p->p_pptr without any locking. As far as I can
> tell, that is wrong. It looks like it should have a read-lock on the
> tasklist_lock in order to not be racy (perhaps the parent does an exit on
> another CPU at just this moment), but it gets slightly ugly because it is
> already called occasionally from contexts that already have it, and in
> other places from contexts that do _not_ have it.
> Is there some reason you can see why this isn't a bug? Fixing it looks
> simple, but either involves making all callers of "notify_parent()" get
> the tasklist lock, or by using a separate "already locked" version for the
> case where we have the lock before (ie "do_notify_parent()"). Issues?

A few days ago somebody in a local list discovered the following message
in his syslog running 2.2.14 on a SMP machine:

kernel: eh? notify_parent with state 0?

It appears to me that tsk->state changed to TASK_RUNNING probably due to
a race. Although he did not observe any harmful impact on his system,
this might be the kind of bug you are talking about.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.065 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site