Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753262Ab1FPLCQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:02:16 -0400 Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([194.196.100.161]:52287 "EHLO mtagate1.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750737Ab1FPLCO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:02:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was Vpid:) From: Greg Kurz To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, serge@hallyn.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, ebiederm@xmission.com, xemul@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <20110615184625.GA15573@redhat.com> References: <20110615145527.4016.70157.stgit@bahia.local> <20110615184625.GA15573@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:01:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1308222107.8230.49.camel@bahia.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1586 Lines: 48 On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 20:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/15, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > > @@ -176,6 +177,17 @@ static inline void task_state(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns, > > if (tracer) > > tpid = task_pid_nr_ns(tracer, ns); > > } > > + actpid = 0; > > + sighand = rcu_dereference(p->sighand); > > + if (sighand) { > > + struct pid_namespace *pid_ns; > > + unsigned long flags; > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, flags); > > Well. This is not exactly right. We have lock_task_sighand() for this. > I see... ->sighand could change so we need the for(;;) loop in __lock_task_sighand() to be sure we have the right pointer, correct ? By the way, if we use lock_task_sighand() we'll end up with nested rcu_read_lock(): it will work but I don't know how it may affect performance... > But. Why do you need ->siglock? Why rcu_read_lock() is not enough? > Because there's a race with __exit_signal()->__unhash_process()->detach_pid() that can break task_active_pid_ns() and rcu won't help here (unless *perhaps* by modifying __exit_signal() but I don't want to mess with such a critical path). > Hmm. You don't even need pid_ns afaics, you could simply look at > pid->numbers[pid->level]. > True but I will have the same problem: detach_pid() nullifies the pid. Thanks for your comments. -- Greg -- 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/