linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Ben Blum <bblum@andrew.cmu.edu>,
	Paul Menage <menage@google.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	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: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:01:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110815180155.GT2389@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110814175119.GC2381@redhat.com>

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:08:13AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Doesn't the following code in the loop body deal with this possibilty?
> >
> > 	/* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */
> > 	if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD)
> > 		goto unlock;
> 
> This code is completely wrong even if while_each_thread() was fine.
> 
> I sent the patch but it was ignored.
> 
> 	[PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break()
> 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127688790019041

If it helps...

Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

							Thanx, Paul

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-08-15 18:02 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
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 [this message]
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=20110815180155.GT2389@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --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=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.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).