From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu>, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible race between cgroup_attach_proc and de_thread, and questionable code in de_thread.
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:08:13 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110728110813.7ff84b13@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110727234235.GA2318@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:42:35 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Ben Blum wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:11:01PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > The race as I understand it is with this code:
> > >
> > >
> > > list_replace_rcu(&leader->tasks, &tsk->tasks);
> > > list_replace_init(&leader->sibling, &tsk->sibling);
> > >
> > > tsk->group_leader = tsk;
> > > leader->group_leader = tsk;
> > >
> > >
> > > which seems to be called with only tasklist_lock held, which doesn't seem to
> > > be held in the cgroup code.
> > >
> > > If the "thread_group_leader(leader)" call in cgroup_attach_proc() runs before
> > > this chunk is run with the same value for 'leader', but the
> > > while_each_thread is run after, then the while_read_thread() might loop
> > > forever. rcu_read_lock doesn't prevent this from happening.
> >
> > Somehow I was under the impression that holding tasklist_lock (for
> > writing) provided exclusion from code that holds rcu_read_lock -
> > probably because there are other points in the kernel which do
> > while_each_thread with only RCU-read held (and not tasklist):
> >
> > - kernel/hung_task.c, check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()
>
> This one looks OK to me. The code is just referencing fields in each
> of the task structures, and appears to be making proper use of
> rcu_dereference(). All this code requires is that the task structures
> remain in existence through the full lifetime of the RCU read-side
> critical section, which is guaranteed because of the way the task_struct
> is freed.
I disagree. It also requires - by virtue of the use of while_each_thread() -
that 'g' remains on the list that 't' is walking along.
Now for a normal list, the head always stays on the list and is accessible
even from an rcu-removed entry. But the thread_group list isn't a normal
list. It doesn't have a distinct head. It is a loop of all of the
'task_structs' in a thread group. One of them is designated the 'leader' but
de_thread() can change the 'leader' - though it doesn't remove the old leader.
__unhash_process in mm/exit.c looks like it could remove the leader from the
list and definitely could remove a non-leader.
So if a non-leader calls 'exec' and the leader calls 'exit', then a
task_struct that was the leader could become a non-leader and then be removed
from the list that kernel/hung_task could be walking along.
So I don't think that while_each_thread() is currently safe. It depends on
the thread leader not disappearing and I think it can.
So I'm imagining a patch like this to ensure that while_each_thread() is
actually safe. If it is always safe you can remove that extra check in
cgroup_attach_proc() which looked wrong.
I just hope someone who understands the process tree is listening..
The change in exit.c is the most uncertain part.
NeilBrown
diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
index 6075a1e..c9ea5f0 100644
--- a/fs/exec.c
+++ b/fs/exec.c
@@ -960,6 +960,9 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
list_replace_init(&leader->sibling, &tsk->sibling);
tsk->group_leader = tsk;
+ smp_mb(); /* ensure that any reader will always be able to see
+ * a task that claims to be the group leader
+ */
leader->group_leader = tsk;
tsk->exit_signal = SIGCHLD;
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 14a6c7b..13e0192 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -2267,8 +2267,10 @@ extern bool current_is_single_threaded(void);
#define do_each_thread(g, t) \
for (g = t = &init_task ; (g = t = next_task(g)) != &init_task ; ) do
+/* Thread group leader can change, so stop loop when we see one
+ * even if it isn't 'g' */
#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
- while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g)
+ while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g && !thread_group_leader(t))
static inline int get_nr_threads(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index f2b321b..d6cef25 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -70,8 +70,13 @@ static void __unhash_process(struct task_struct *p, bool group_dead)
list_del_rcu(&p->tasks);
list_del_init(&p->sibling);
__this_cpu_dec(process_counts);
- }
- list_del_rcu(&p->thread_group);
+ } else
+ /* only remove members from the thread group.
+ * The thread group leader must stay so that
+ * while_each_thread() uses can see the end of
+ * the list and stop.
+ */
+ list_del_rcu(&p->thread_group);
}
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-28 1:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20110727171101.5e32d8eb@notabene.brown>
2011-07-27 15:07 ` Possible race between cgroup_attach_proc and de_thread, and questionable code in de_thread Ben Blum
2011-07-27 23:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-28 1:08 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2011-07-28 6:26 ` Ben Blum
2011-07-28 7:13 ` NeilBrown
2011-07-29 14:28 ` [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: more safe tasklist locking in cgroup_attach_proc Ben Blum
2011-08-01 19:31 ` Paul Menage
2011-08-15 18:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-08-15 22:50 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-08-15 23:04 ` Ben Blum
2011-08-15 23:09 ` Ben Blum
2011-08-15 23:19 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-08-15 23:11 ` [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: fix ordering of calls " Ben Blum
2011-08-15 23:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-08-15 23:31 ` Paul Menage
2011-09-01 21:46 ` [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: more safe tasklist locking " Ben Blum
2011-09-02 12:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-09-08 2:11 ` Ben Blum
2011-10-14 0:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] cgroups: use sighand lock instead of tasklist_lock " Ben Blum
2011-10-14 12:15 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-10-14 0:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] cgroups: convert ss->attach to use whole threadgroup flex_array (cpuset, memcontrol) Ben Blum
2011-10-14 12:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-10-14 13:53 ` Ben Blum
2011-10-14 13:54 ` Ben Blum
2011-10-14 15:22 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-10-17 19:11 ` Ben Blum
2011-10-14 15:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-10-19 5:43 ` Paul Menage
2011-07-28 12:17 ` Possible race between cgroup_attach_proc and de_thread, and questionable code in de_thread Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-14 17:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-08-14 23:58 ` NeilBrown
2011-08-15 18:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-08-14 17:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-08-14 17:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-08-15 0:11 ` NeilBrown
2011-08-15 19:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110728110813.7ff84b13@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=bblum@andrew.cmu.edu \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).