lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call in posix_cpu_timer_create
Hello,

On (11/25/10 12:02), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> (another try, actually add Sergey)
>
Thank you.

> On 11/25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 20:09 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > > @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ int posix_cpu_timer_create(struct k_itimer *new_timer)
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_timer->it.cpu.entry);
> > >
> > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > if (CPUCLOCK_PERTHREAD(new_timer->it_clock)) {
> > > if (pid == 0) {
> > > p = current;
> > > @@ -414,6 +415,7 @@ int posix_cpu_timer_create(struct k_itimer *new_timer)
> > > } else {
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > >
> > > return ret;
> >
> > Do we still need the tasklist_lock in this case?
>
> No. posix-cpu-timer.c shouldn't use tasklist at all. But it is not
> completely trivial to remove it.
>
> In particular, this patch is not exactly right, we can't trust
> thread_group_leader() without tasklist.
>
> Sergey already sent the patch which removes tasklist from
> posix_cpu_timer_create() and posix_cpu_timer_create(), and iirc
> Thomas queued it.
>

You're right, Oleg.

Commit-ID: c0deae8c9587419ab13874b74425ce2eb2e18508
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/c0deae8c9587419ab13874b74425ce2eb2e18508
Author: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:52:56 +0200
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CommitDate: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:07:06 +0100

posix-cpu-timers: Rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call

queued (15 days so far).


> > Also, why is that think complaining, surely the tasklist_lock pins any
> > and all PID objects?
>
> The only problem is: if copy_process() fails, it does free_pid()
> lockless. This means, without rcu lock it is not safe to scan the
> rcu-protected lists.
>
> We can change copy_process() (in fact I sent the patch several
> years ago), but everybody think that find_pid/etc should always
> take rcu_read_lock() instead. I tend to agree.
>
> Oleg.
>

Sergey[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-25 12:29    [W:0.056 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site