Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:00:48 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix tasklist + find_pid() with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
Message-ID: <20080130050048.GH12073@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20080129164019.GA2060@tv-sign.ru> <m1ir1cgfmm.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1ir1cgfmm.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3223
Lines: 87

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:24:17PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> writes:
> 
> > With CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU read_lock(tasklist_lock) doesn't imply rcu_read_lock(),
> > but find_pid_ns()->hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() should be safe under tasklist.
> >
> > Usually it is, detach_pid() is always called under write_lock(tasklist_lock),
> > but copy_process() calls free_pid() lockless.
> >
> > "#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU" is added mostly as documentation, perhaps it is
> > too ugly and should be removed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
> >
> > --- MM/kernel/fork.c~PR_RCU	2008-01-27 17:09:47.000000000 +0300
> > +++ MM/kernel/fork.c	2008-01-29 19:23:44.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -1335,8 +1335,19 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
> >  	return p;
> >  
> >  bad_fork_free_pid:
> > -	if (pid != &init_struct_pid)
> > +	if (pid != &init_struct_pid) {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > +		/*
> > +		 * read_lock(tasklist_lock) doesn't imply rcu_read_lock(),
> > +		 * make sure find_pid() is safe under read_lock(tasklist).
> > +		 */
> > +		write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > +#endif
> >  		free_pid(pid);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
> > +		write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > +#endif
> > +	}
> >  bad_fork_cleanup_namespaces:
> >  	exit_task_namespaces(p);
> >  bad_fork_cleanup_keys:
> 
> Ok. I believe I see what problem you are trying to fix.  That
> a pid returned from find_pid might disappear if we are not rcu
> protected.
> 
> This patch in the simplest form is wrong because it is confusing.
> 
> We currently appear to have two options.
> 1) Force all pid hash table access and pid accesses that
>    do not get a count to be covered under rcu_read_lock.
> 2) To modify the locking requirements for free_pid to require
>    the tasklist_lock.
> 
>    However this second approach is horribly brittle, as it
>    will break if we ever have intermediate entries in the
>    hash table protected by pidmap_lock.
> 
> Using the tasklist_lock to still guarantee we see the list, the entire
> list, and exactly the list for proper implementation of kill to
> process groups and sessions still seems sane.
> 
> So let's just remove the guarantee of find_pid being usable with
> just the tasklist_lock held.

Makes sense to me -- it is totally permissible to hold rcu_read_lock()
across update code.  ;-)

						Thanx, Paul

> Eric
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/pid.h b/include/linux/pid.h
> index e29a900..0ffb8cc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pid.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pid.h
> @@ -100,8 +100,7 @@ struct pid_namespace;
>  extern struct pid_namespace init_pid_ns;
> 
>  /*
> - * look up a PID in the hash table. Must be called with the tasklist_lock
> - * or rcu_read_lock() held.
> + * look up a PID in the hash table. Must be called with the rcu_read_lock() held.
>   *
>   * find_pid_ns() finds the pid in the namespace specified
>   * find_pid() find the pid by its global id, i.e. in the init namespace
--
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/