Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754009Ab1FPMpN (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:45:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2729 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753510Ab1FPMpL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:45:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:42:14 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Greg Kurz 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was Vpid:) Message-ID: <20110616124019.GA19312@redhat.com> References: <20110615145527.4016.70157.stgit@bahia.local> <20110615184625.GA15573@redhat.com> <1308222107.8230.49.camel@bahia.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1308222107.8230.49.camel@bahia.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1947 Lines: 66 On 06/16, Greg Kurz wrote: > > 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 ? Yes, > 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... You are kidding ;) > > 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() Yes, > and rcu won't help here Why? free_pid() uses call_rcu() to do put_pid() > (unless *perhaps* by > modifying __exit_signal() but I don't want to mess with such a critical > path). I don't think so... > > 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. Can't understand. Of course pid can be NULL. So what? Say, ->sighand can be NULL as well, they both "disappear" at the same time. This is fine, we raced with exit, we should report pid=0. Oleg. -- 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/