lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: more safe tasklist locking in cgroup_attach_proc
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:50:06AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 08:49:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/29, Ben Blum wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > So far I still think we should fix while_each_thread() so that it works
> > under rcu_read_lock() "as exepected", I'll try to think more.
> >
> > But whatever we do with while_each_thread(), this can't help
> > cgroup_attach_proc(), it needs the locking.
> >
> > > - rcu_read_lock();
> > > + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > if (!thread_group_leader(leader)) {
> >
> > Agreed, this should work.
> >
> > But can't we avoid the global list? thread_group_leader() or not, we do
> > not really care. We only need to ensure we can safely find all threads.
> >
> > How about the patch below?
> >
> >
> > With or without this/your patch this leader can die right after we
> > drop the lock. ss->can_attach(leader) and ss->attach(leader) look
> > suspicious. If a sub-thread execs, this task_struct has nothing to
> > do with the threadgroup.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also. This is off-topic, but... Why cgroup_attach_proc() and
> > cgroup_attach_task() do ->attach_task() + cgroup_task_migrate()
> > in the different order? cgroup_attach_proc() looks wrong even
> > if currently doesn't matter.
>
> Right. As we concluded in our off-list discussion, if there
> is no strong reason for that, I'm going to fix that in my task
> counter patchset because there it really matters. If we can't
> migrate the thread because it has already exited, we really
> don't want to call ->attach_task() but rather cancel_attach_task().
>
> Thanks.
>

Yes. Um, this must have been a mistake on my part. The lines of code
should be the other way around. It should be done in a separate bugfix
patch, though, so it goes through faster...

-- Ben


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-16 01:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans