lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/1] futex: check PF_KTHREAD rather than !p->mm to filter out kthreads
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 09:09:16PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Btw, do you agree with 1/1? Can you ack/nack it?

Done!

> On 02/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:05:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > And another question. Lets forget about this ->mm check. I simply can not
> > > understand this
> > >
> > > ret = (p->flags & PF_EXITPIDONE) ? -ESRCH : -EAGAIN
> > >
> > > I must have missed something but this looks buggy, I do not see any
> > > preemption point in this "retry" loop. Suppose that max_cpus=1 and rt_task()
> > > preempts the non-rt PF_EXITING owner. Looks like futex_lock_pi() can spin
> > > forever in this case? (OK, ignoring RT throttling).
> >
> > So yes, I do like your proposal of putting PF_EXITPIDONE under the
> > ->pi_lock section that handles exit_pi_state_list().
>
> Probably I was not clear... Let try again just in case.
>
> I believe that the whole "spin waiting for PF_EXITING -> PF_EXITPIDONE
> transition" idea is simply wrong. See the test-case I sent.
>
> I think that attach_to_pi_owner() should never check PF_EXITING and never
> return -EAGAIN. It should either proceed and add pi_state to the list or
> return -ESRCH if exit_pi_state_list() was called.
>
> Do you agree?

Yes.

> Perhaps we can set PF_EXITPIDONE lockless and avoid the unconditional
> lock(pi_lock) but this is minor.

Agreed, lets first fix things. We can optimize later.

> The main problem is that I fail to understand why this logic was added
> in the first place... To avoid the race with exit_robust_list() ? I do
> not see why this is needed...

exit_pi_state_list() I think, but 778e9a9c3e71 ("pi-futex: fix exit
races and locking problems") is a big and somewhat confusing patch.

I'm not quite sure why/how all that happened either, it was before I got
sucked into all this.

I'm not entire sure why we need two PF flags for this; once PF_EXITING
is set userspace is _dead_ and it doesn't make sense to keep adding
(futex) PI-state to the task.

> > As for the recursive fault; I think the safer option is to set
> > EXITPIDONE and not register more PI states, as opposed to allowing more
> > and more states to be added. Yes we'll leak whatever currently is there,
> > but no point in allowing it to get worse.
>
> Not sure I understand... If you mean recursive do_exit() then yes, I think
> that we should simply set EXITPIDONE lockless in a best-effort manner, this
> is what the current code does. Just the comment should be updated in any
> case imo.

Yes, the "Fixing recursive fault..." branch, you had an XXX explain
comment there. I think we agree there.

> But mostly I was confused by the pseudo-code below. Heh, because I thought
> that it describes the changes in kernel/futex.c you think we should do. Now
> that I finally realized that it outlines the current code I am unconfused a
> bit ;)

Yes, it was an attempt to show what the current code does -- which is;
of itself; confusing enough.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-04 12:21    [W:0.082 / U:1.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site