Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752097Ab1FPNBL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:01:11 -0400 Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([194.196.100.161]:48006 "EHLO mtagate1.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751292Ab1FPNBG (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:01:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce ActivePid: in /proc/self/status (v2, was Vpid:) From: Greg Kurz To: Louis Rilling Cc: Oleg Nesterov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, xemul@openvz.org In-Reply-To: <20110616123554.GA7230@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> References: <20110615145527.4016.70157.stgit@bahia.local> <20110615184625.GA15573@redhat.com> <1308222107.8230.49.camel@bahia.local> <20110616123554.GA7230@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:00:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1308229251.8230.77.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: 2703 Lines: 78 On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 14:35 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote: > On 16/06/11 13:01 +0200, 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 ? > > 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... > > rcu_read_lock() is very cheap. > Fair enough. In this case, lock_task_sighand() would be the right choice if locking is needed. > > > > > 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). > > In case of race, the only risk is that task_active_pid_ns() returns NULL. > Otherwise, RCU guarantees that the pid_ns will stay alive (see below). > > > > > > 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. > > But the pid won't be freed until an RCU grace period expires. See free_pid(). So > the non-determinism here is when /proc//status is read at the same as > threaded execve() or task's exit(), in which case a stale pid (execve()) or > no pid (exit after __unhash_process()) can be accessed. This does not look like > a big deal... > Ok. You're right, the RCU grace period is just what I need to ensure I won't dereference a stale pointer. So I don't even have to bother with ->siglock and just check pid_alive() before peeking into pid->numbers. > Thanks, > > Louis > Thanks for your help. -- 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/