[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
On 06/21, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <> writes:
> >> If
> >> that's so, then just changing it to avoid the situation seems like it
> >> would be less invasive overall.
> >
> > How? We should change ->group_leader uner write_lock_irq(tasklist),
> > synchronize_rcu() is not an option. We can't do call_rcu(release_task),
> > we can't take tasklist for writing in the softirq context. But even
> > if we could, this can't help in fact or I missed something.
> We already do: call_rcu(&p->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct); in release_task.
> We don't call release_task until after we have removed it as leader and
> dropped the write lock.

Yes. I meant that while this is needed to ensure that next_thread/etc
returns the rcu-safe data, this (or more rcu_call's) can help to fix

I think I was unclear. de_thread() changes ->group_leader, but this does
not matter at all. I mentioned this only because we discussed the possibility
to check ->group_leader in while_each_thread.

What does matter is the single line in __unhash_process()


this breaks while_each_thread().

IOW. Why list_for_each_rcu(head) actually works? It works because this
head itself can't be removed from list.

while_each_thread(g, t) is almost equal to list_for_each_rcu() and it
can only work if g can't be removed from list (OK, strictly speaking
until other sub-threads go away, but this doesn't matter).

However, g can be removed if a) it is not ->group_leader and exits,
or b) its subthread execs.

> At first glance it sounds like the group leader is safe as a stopping
> point for a rcu while_each_thread, and I expect the fact that
> de_thread takes everything down to a single thread, could have nice
> properties here. If pid_alive were only to fail on the group leader
> when de_thread is called I think we could legitimately say that an event
> we won't worry about. It is close enough to a new thread being created
> anyway.

Not sure I understand exactly... I mean, I don't understand whether
you agree or not with the fix which adds pid_alive() check into


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-22 16:39    [W:0.077 / U:12.888 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site