To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
       Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       stable@kernel.org
References: <20100618190251.GA17297@redhat.com>
	<20100618193403.GA17314@redhat.com>
	<20100618223354.GL2365@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20100621170919.GA13826@redhat.com>
	<20100621174455.GA14886@redhat.com>
	<20100621190212.C8630400C5@magilla.sf.frob.com>
	<20100621200633.GA21099@redhat.com>
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:19:53 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20100621200633.GA21099@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Mon\, 21 Jun 2010 22\:06\:33 +0200")
Message-ID: <m1vd9c2idi.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2149
Lines: 51

Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:

> On 06/21, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>
>> > Paul, Roland, do you see any problems from the correctness pov,
>> > or a better fix for now?
>> >
>> > Perhaps it also makes sense to keep the old variant renamed to
>> > while_each_thread_locked(), I dunno.
>>
>> Did we verify that only de_thread() can create the situation where a
>> while_each_thread-style loop without either lock can be confused?
>
> I think yes, this is is the only case.
>
> I mean, while_each_thread(group_leader, t). If g != group_leader, then
> the lockless while_each_thread() has problems with the plain exit(g).
>
> Afaics. The more I think about this, the more I feel confused ;)
>
> But if we start from ->group_leader, then while_each_thread() must
> stop eventually. Otherwise we should assume that the dead (unhashed)
> tasks can create the circular list, obviously this is not possible.
>
>> If
>> that's so, then just changing it to avoid the situation seems like it
>> would be less invasive overall.
>
> How? We should change ->group_leader uner write_lock_irq(tasklist),
> synchronize_rcu() is not an option. We can't do call_rcu(release_task),
> we can't take tasklist for writing in the softirq context. But even
> if we could, this can't help in fact or I missed something.

We already do: call_rcu(&p->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct); in release_task.
We don't call release_task until after we have removed it as leader and
dropped the write lock. 

At first glance it sounds like the group leader is safe as a stopping
point for a rcu while_each_thread, and I expect the fact that
de_thread takes everything down to a single thread, could have nice
properties here.  If pid_alive were only to fail on the group leader
when de_thread is called I think we could legitimately say that an event
we won't worry about.  It is close enough to a new thread being created
anyway.

Eric
--
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/