Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:50:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in
	task_numa_assign()
Message-ID: <20141020205006.GA2500@redhat.com>
References: <1413800145.19914.23.camel@tkhai> <20141020144757.GA10939@redhat.com> <20141020165614.GA16373@redhat.com> <20141020182748.GA20424@redhat.com> <54456E26.2000103@yandex.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54456E26.2000103@yandex.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 10/21, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
> I think generic helper is a good idea. The prototype looks OK.
>
> But I'm a little doubt about retry loop. If this helper is generic and
> one day it may move to ./include directory,

Well, if we add a generic helper I think it should be exported even if
it has a single caller. But I agree this probably needs a justification
too.

> isn't there a probability
> people will use it wrong? This loop may bring delays or something bad.

Yes, I thought about livelock too. OK, we can remove it, just
s/goto retry/return NULL/. Or, perhaps better, return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN)
so that the caller can know that retry is possible.

I do not really mind, and we can reconsider this later. And I will not
argue if you prefer to add the rq->curr specific hack (like your patch
does).

> And since we still depends on RCU, I'd suggest to add its lockdep assert.

Agreed.

Let me explain what I personally dislike in v3:

	- I think that we do not have enough reasons for
	  SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. This is the serious change.

	  probe_kernel_read() looks better to me, and hopefully
	  IS_ENABLED(DEBUG_PAGEALLOC) can make it conditional.

	- PF_EXITING was fine in task_numa_compare(), but if we
	  move this logic into a helper (even if it is not exported)
	  then I think we need a more specific check. sighand == NULL
	  looks better to me because it clearly connects to
	  release_task() which makes this task_struct "rcu-unsafe".

	- Again, perhaps we should start we a simple and stupid fix.
	  We can do get_task_struct() under rq->lock or, if nothing
	  else, just

	  	raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
	  	cur = rq->curr;
	  	if (is_idle_task(cur) || (cur->flags & PF_EXITING))
	  		cur = NULL;
	  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);

Either way, I hope you will send v4 ;)

But probably you should wait for for Peter's opinion first.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/