From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758208Ab1LGTTW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:19:22 -0500
Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:33426 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756616Ab1LGTTV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:19:21 -0500
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 23:19:16 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
        KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
        Andrew Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs, proc: Introduce the /proc/<pid>/children entry v2
Message-ID: <20111207191916.GR21678@moon>
References: <20111206181026.GO29781@moon>
 <20111207185343.GA3209@redhat.com>
 <20111207190340.GP21678@moon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111207190340.GP21678@moon>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:03:40PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 07:53:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Cyrill,
> > 
> > Sorry, I didn't read this patch yet, but
> > 
> > On 12/06, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > >
> > > +static void *children_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > > +
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > +	task = seq->private;
> > > +	if (task)
> > > +		return seq_list_start(&task->children, *pos);
> > 
> > This looks "obviously wrong".
> > 
> > We can not trust ->children->next after rcu_read_unlock(). Another
> > rcu_read_lock() can't help.
> > 
> > Once again, I can be easily wrong, need to read the patch first.
> > 
> 
> Wait, Oleg, I might be wrong as well, but it's now as
> 
> children_seq_open
>  get_proc_task (so ref to task increased)
> 
> the children_seq_start/children_seq_stop works
> in iteration and every new iteration seq_list_next
> walks over the whole children list from the list
> head under rcu lock, so even if task is removed
> or added the link should exsist until rcu is unlocked
> and sync'ed no?
> 

On the other hands some if (task) tests are redundant
and might be dropped since we have a reference to a
task until seq-file is not released. I'll update it
and shrink a patch some more.

	Cyrill