2023-05-03 12:56:16

by Michal Koutný

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: Return error when attempting to migrate a zombie process

Zombies aren't migrated. However, return value of a migration write may
suggest a zombie process was migrated and causing confusion about lack
of cgroup.events:populated between origin and target cgroups (e.g.
target cgroup rmdir).

Notify the users about no effect of their action by a return value.
(update_dfl_csses migration of zombies still silently passes since it is
not meant to be user-visible migration anyway.)

Suggested-by: Benjamin Berg <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný <[email protected]>
---
kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Reasons for RFC:
1) Some users may notice the change,
2) EINVAL vs ESCHR,
3) add a selftest?

diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
index 625d7483951c..306547dd7b76 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
@@ -2968,7 +2968,8 @@ struct task_struct *cgroup_procs_write_start(char *buf, bool threadgroup,
* become trapped in a cpuset, or RT kthread may be born in a
* cgroup with no rt_runtime allocated. Just say no.
*/
- if (tsk->no_cgroup_migration || (tsk->flags & PF_NO_SETAFFINITY)) {
+ if (tsk->no_cgroup_migration || (tsk->flags & PF_NO_SETAFFINITY) ||
+ !atomic_read(&tsk->signal->live)) {
tsk = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
goto out_unlock_threadgroup;
}
--
2.40.1


2023-05-05 19:13:28

by Tejun Heo

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: Return error when attempting to migrate a zombie process

Hello,

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:53:59PM +0200, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> Zombies aren't migrated. However, return value of a migration write may
> suggest a zombie process was migrated and causing confusion about lack
> of cgroup.events:populated between origin and target cgroups (e.g.
> target cgroup rmdir).
>
> Notify the users about no effect of their action by a return value.
> (update_dfl_csses migration of zombies still silently passes since it is
> not meant to be user-visible migration anyway.)
>
> Suggested-by: Benjamin Berg <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Koutn? <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Reasons for RFC:
> 1) Some users may notice the change,
> 2) EINVAL vs ESCHR,
> 3) add a selftest?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> index 625d7483951c..306547dd7b76 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> @@ -2968,7 +2968,8 @@ struct task_struct *cgroup_procs_write_start(char *buf, bool threadgroup,
> * become trapped in a cpuset, or RT kthread may be born in a
> * cgroup with no rt_runtime allocated. Just say no.
> */
> - if (tsk->no_cgroup_migration || (tsk->flags & PF_NO_SETAFFINITY)) {
> + if (tsk->no_cgroup_migration || (tsk->flags & PF_NO_SETAFFINITY) ||
> + !atomic_read(&tsk->signal->live)) {

This seems racy to me. The liveness state can change between here and the
PF_EXITING check in cgroup_migrate_add_task(), right? Wouldn't it be better
to just track how many tasks are tracked and return -ESRCH if none was
migrated?

Thanks.

--
tejun

2023-05-09 10:25:38

by Michal Koutný

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cgroup: Return error when attempting to migrate a zombie process

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:04:37AM -1000, Tejun Heo <[email protected]> wrote:
> This seems racy to me. The liveness state can change between here and the
> PF_EXITING check in cgroup_migrate_add_task(), right?

You're right, threadgroup lock won't prevent that (as I got wrongly in
the patch):

cgroup_procs_write_start
do_exit
exit_signals
cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin
tsk->flags |= PF_EXITING
cgroup_threadgroup_change_end
percpu_down_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem)
...
atomic_read(&live)
...
atomic_dec_and_test(live)
...
cgroup_migrate_add_task
...
percpu_up_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem)


> Wouldn't it be better to just track how many tasks are tracked and
> return -ESRCH if none was migrated?

Thanks, such an integral sounds better, will see.

Michal


Attachments:
(No filename) (1.45 kB)
signature.asc (235.00 B)
Download all attachments