Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:59:26 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, suzannew@cs.pdx.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixes for RCU handling of task_struct
Message-ID: <20051106225926.GC22876@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com
References: <20051031020535.GA46@us.ibm.com> <20051031140459.GA5664@elte.hu> <20051031205119.5bd897f3.akpm@osdl.org> <20051103190916.GA13417@us.ibm.com> <436B9D5D.3EB28CD5@tv-sign.ru> <20051104200801.GA16092@us.ibm.com> <436CDEAC.A7D56A94@tv-sign.ru> <20051105232027.GA20178@us.ibm.com> <436DF0A6.342717A6@tv-sign.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <436DF0A6.342717A6@tv-sign.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3348
Lines: 76

On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 03:01:42PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > 
> > So the idea is to error out of send_sigqueue() so that posix_timer_event()
> > will instead call send_group_sigqueeue().  But that could suffer from
> > the same race if the new leader thread also exits -- or if the exiting
> > thread was the leader thread to begin with.
> 
> The case when leader exits is ok. If it is the only (last) thread - it will
> call exit_itimers(). If not - it (or sys_wait4 from parent) will not call
> release_task(), but will stay TASK_ZOMBIE with valid ->signal/sighand until
> the last thread in same thread group exits (and call exit_itimers).
> 
> > But once send_group_sigqueue() read-acquires tasklist_lock, threads
> > and processes must stay put.  So it should be possible to follow the
> > ->group_leader chain at that point.
> 
> Not quite so, I think. See below.
> 
> > Except that the group leader could do an exec(), right?  If it does so,
> > it must do so before tasklist_lock is read-acquired.  So the nightmare
> > case is where all but one thread exits, and then that one thread does
> > and exec().
> 
> ... and that thread is not group leader. Actually, it does not matter
> if other threads exited or not, execing thread will kill other threads.
> 
> > If this case can really happen, we want to drop the signal
> > on the floor, right?
> 
> I think yes.
> 
> > diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.14-mm0-fix/kernel/signal.c linux-2.6.14-mm0-fix-2/kernel/signal.c
> > --- linux-2.6.14-mm0-fix/kernel/signal.c        2005-11-04 17:23:40.000000000 -0800
> > +++ linux-2.6.14-mm0-fix-2/kernel/signal.c      2005-11-05 15:05:38.000000000 -0800
> > @@ -1408,6 +1408,11 @@ send_sigqueue(int sig, struct sigqueue *
> > 
> >  retry:
> >         sh = rcu_dereference(p->sighand);
> > +       if (sh == NULL) {
> > +               /* We raced with pthread_exit()... */
> > +               ret = -1;
> > +               goto out_err;
> > +       }
> 
> I lost the plot. Because I can't apply this and previous patches (rejects)
> and can't imagine how send_sigqueue() looks now. I think this is ok, but
> we also need to re-check ->signal != NULL after lock(->sighand) or check
> PF_EXITING (iirc ve do have such check).

I lost the plot as well.  There were apparently a very large number of
changes awaiting 2.6.14 coming out.  ;-)

I also believe we have such a check.

> > @@ -1474,7 +1479,8 @@ send_group_sigqueue(int sig, struct sigq
> >         BUG_ON(!(q->flags & SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC));
> > 
> >         read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > -       /* Since it_lock is held, p->sighand cannot be NULL. */
> > +       while (p->group_leader != p)
> > +               p = p->group_leader;
> 
> No, this is definitely not right. de_thread() does not change leader->group_leader
> when non-leader execs, so p->group_leader == p always.

This was intended for the case where the group leader does pthread_exit,
which would cause some other thread to assume group leadership.  Or am
I missing something from that code path?  (Quite likely that I am...)

						Thanx, Paul
-
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/