From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:30:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes Message-Id: <20120324103030.GG29067@lizard> List-Id: References: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> In-Reply-To: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it is unsafe. p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please take a closer look. Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov --- arch/um/kernel/reboot.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c index 4d93dff..66d754c 100644 --- a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ */ #include "linux/sched.h" +#include "linux/spinlock.h" #include "linux/slab.h" #include "kern_util.h" #include "os.h" @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) struct task_struct *p; int pid; + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process(p) { if (p->mm = NULL) continue; @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) pid = p->mm->context.id.u.pid; os_kill_ptraced_process(pid, 1); } + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); } } -- 1.7.9.2 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:30:30 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov Message-ID: <20120324103030.GG29067@lizard> References: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 07/10] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes To: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov Cc: Russell King , Mike Frysinger , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Richard Weinberger , Paul Mundt , Peter Zijlstra , KOSAKI Motohiro , John Stultz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it is unsafe. p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please take a closer look. Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov --- arch/um/kernel/reboot.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c index 4d93dff..66d754c 100644 --- a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ */ #include "linux/sched.h" +#include "linux/spinlock.h" #include "linux/slab.h" #include "kern_util.h" #include "os.h" @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) struct task_struct *p; int pid; + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process(p) { if (p->mm == NULL) continue; @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) pid = p->mm->context.id.u.pid; os_kill_ptraced_process(pid, 1); } + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); } } -- 1.7.9.2 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f51.google.com (mail-bk0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED268B6ED0 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:31:43 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail-bk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j10so3226820bkw.38 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:30:30 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov Subject: [PATCH 07/10] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes Message-ID: <20120324103030.GG29067@lizard> References: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> Cc: Mike Frysinger , Peter Zijlstra , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mundt , John Stultz , KOSAKI Motohiro , Russell King , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it is unsafe. p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please take a closer look. Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov --- arch/um/kernel/reboot.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c index 4d93dff..66d754c 100644 --- a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ */ #include "linux/sched.h" +#include "linux/spinlock.h" #include "linux/slab.h" #include "kern_util.h" #include "os.h" @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) struct task_struct *p; int pid; + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process(p) { if (p->mm == NULL) continue; @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) pid = p->mm->context.id.u.pid; os_kill_ptraced_process(pid, 1); } + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); } } -- 1.7.9.2 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: anton.vorontsov@linaro.org (Anton Vorontsov) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:30:30 +0400 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes In-Reply-To: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> References: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> Message-ID: <20120324103030.GG29067@lizard> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it is unsafe. p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please take a closer look. Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov --- arch/um/kernel/reboot.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c index 4d93dff..66d754c 100644 --- a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ */ #include "linux/sched.h" +#include "linux/spinlock.h" #include "linux/slab.h" #include "kern_util.h" #include "os.h" @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) struct task_struct *p; int pid; + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process(p) { if (p->mm == NULL) continue; @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) pid = p->mm->context.id.u.pid; os_kill_ptraced_process(pid, 1); } + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); } } -- 1.7.9.2 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx199.postini.com [74.125.245.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF6926B00F0 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id q16so4264167bkw.14 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:30:30 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: [PATCH 07/10] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing processes Message-ID: <20120324103030.GG29067@lizard> References: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120324102609.GA28356@lizard> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton , Oleg Nesterov Cc: Russell King , Mike Frysinger , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Richard Weinberger , Paul Mundt , Peter Zijlstra , KOSAKI Motohiro , John Stultz , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it is unsafe. p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process() in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please take a closer look. Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov --- arch/um/kernel/reboot.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c index 4d93dff..66d754c 100644 --- a/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c +++ b/arch/um/kernel/reboot.c @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ */ #include "linux/sched.h" +#include "linux/spinlock.h" #include "linux/slab.h" #include "kern_util.h" #include "os.h" @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) struct task_struct *p; int pid; + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); for_each_process(p) { if (p->mm == NULL) continue; @@ -29,6 +31,7 @@ static void kill_off_processes(void) pid = p->mm->context.id.u.pid; os_kill_ptraced_process(pid, 1); } + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); } } -- 1.7.9.2 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org