lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + exitc-call-proc_exit_connector-after-exit_state-is-set.patch added to -mm tree
On 02/27, Guillaume Morin wrote:
>
> On 25 Feb 16:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > pid_t pid = fork();
> > > if (pid > 0) {
> > > register_interest_for_pid(pid);
> > > if (waitpid(pid, NULL, WNOHANG) > 0)
> > > {
> > > /* We might have raced with exit() */
> > > }
> >
> > Just in case... Even with this patch the code above is still "racy" if the
> > child is multi-threaded. Plus it should obviously filter-out subthreads.
> > And afaics there is no way to make it reliable, even if you change the
> > code above so that waitpid() is called only after the last thread exits
> > WNOHANG still can fail.
> > Not that I am not arguing with this change. Although I hope that someone
> > can confirm that netlink_broadcast() is safe even if release_task(current)
> > was already called, so that the caller has no pids, sighand, is not visible
> > via /proc/, etc.
>
> I was too succinct, I think. What I am trying to do is to close a race
> when a short-lived *process* dies before register_interest_for_pid()
> interprets the connector message correctly, (i.e realizes this is an
> exit message for a pid that the parent created).

Yes, I misunderstood the changelog, thanks.

Anyway, I only tried to say that "a small window between when the event
is delivered and the child become wait()-able." is not closed by this
patch. Sorry for not being clear enough.

> You clarified for me that a ptraced process is a case where this race
> could still happen. That's a good point. Fortunately, in the case of a
> short-lived process, this is not a common scenario.

OK.

> You seem to say it's possible for all threads to have completed
> exit_notify() and sent their exit message to the connector before
> register_interest_for_pid() does its job and still have waitpid(WNOHANG)
> fails. Is it correct?

And I indeed said this, but I was wrong ;) Sorry. somehow I forgot
that with this patch release_task(sub_thread) is always called before
proc_exit_connector() (and I even asked if this is safe above).

However, I still do not see how you can ensure that all threads have
already exited to rely on WNOHANG.

Nevermind. Please consider this trivial example:

tfunc(void *)
{
for (;;)
pause();
}

int main(void)
{
pthread_create(tfunc);
pthread_exit();
}

The main thread can exit and call proc_exit_connector() before
register_interest_for_pid(), but WNOHANG obviously can't succeed.

So I am still not sure this patch can solve the problem you described.
But let me repeat just in case: I am not arguing with this change.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-27 18:21    [W:0.046 / U:14.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site