Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Message-ID: <c768aae4-1c41-41ef-895d-33556b99dc15@linux.dev>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 22:13:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] bpf: kernel/bpf/task_iter.c: don't abuse
 next_thread()
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Cc:     Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231114163211.GA874@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
From:   Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20231114163211.GA874@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/14/23 11:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Compile tested.
>
> Every lockless usage of next_thread() was wrong, bpf/task_iter.c is
> the last user and is no exception.

It would be great if you can give more information in the commit message
about why the usage of next_thread() is wrong in bpf/task_iter.c.
IIUC, some information is presented in :
   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230824143112.GA31208@redhat.com/

Also, please add 'bpf' in the subject tag ([PATCH bpf 0/3]) to
make it clear the patch should be applied to bpf tree.

>
> Oleg.
> ---
>
>   kernel/bpf/task_iter.c | 29 +++++++++++------------------
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>