lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] account_group_exec_runtime: fix the racy usage of ->signal
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 14:04 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/08, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the signal lock must not nest inside the rq
> > > > lock, and these accounting functions are called from within the
> > > > scheduler.
> > >
> > > Why? we seem to never do task_rq_lock() under ->siglock ?
> >
> > signal_wake_up() ?
>
> I'd wish very much I could say I have already realized this, but I didn't.
> Thanks Ingo!
>
> I don't see the good solution for this problem. I'll send the new patch in
> a minute, but it is ugly. Basically it is
>
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -141,6 +141,8 @@ static void __exit_signal(struct task_st
> if (sig) {
> flush_sigqueue(&sig->shared_pending);
> taskstats_tgid_free(sig);
> + smp_mb();
> + spin_unlock_wait(&task_rq(tsk)->lock);
> __cleanup_signal(sig);
> }
> }
>
> except this needs a helper in sched.c. You can nack it right now ;)
> Of course we can protect ->signal with rcu, but this is even worse
> imho.
>
> Anybody sees a bettter fix?
>
>
> Perhaps we can change sched.c to do update_curr() only when the
> task is not running (except ->task_tick), iow perhaps we can check
> sleep/wakeup == T before calling update_cur(). But this is not easy
> even if really possible.

and butt ugly to boot..


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-10 13:17    [W:0.039 / U:1.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site