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 S1753530AbbJOPeT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:34:19 -0400
Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com ([209.85.215.48]:36481 "EHLO
	mail-lf0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751145AbbJOPeS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:34:18 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:34:13 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "kmod: handle UMH_WAIT_PROC from system
 unbound workqueue"
Message-ID: <20151015153411.GD12822@lerouge>
References: <20151014185153.GA8117@redhat.com>
 <20151014185209.GB8117@redhat.com>
 <20151015133737.GC12822@lerouge>
 <20151015151819.GA22187@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151015151819.GA22187@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 05:18:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/15, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:52:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > This reverts commit bb304a5c6fc63d8506cd9741a3a5f35b73605625.
> > >
> > > Because this patch leads to kthread zombies.
> > >
> > > call_usermodehelper_exec_sync() does fork() + wait() with "unignored"
> > > SIGCHLD. What we have missed is that this worker thread can have other
> > > children previously forked by call_usermodehelper_exec_work() without
> > > UMH_WAIT_PROC. If such a child exits in between it becomes a zombie
> > > and nobody can reap it (unless/until this worker thread exits too).
> >
> > I missed that indeed.
> 
> Heh me too ;)
> 
> > But then when we create the async thread with
> > UMH_NO_WAIT, who reaps it? It's created by the workqueue which never
> > exits.
> 
> It is auto-reaped because SIGCHILD is ignored. And this is why
> bb304a5c6fc6 is wrong; it can die while UMH_WAIT_PROC case waits
> for the new child.

Oooh, that's subtle!

> 
> > And on others cases, who buries the sync thread?
> 
> The same.
> 
> Please see V2 I sent. I'll try to send more cleanups soon to make
> this all more explicit.

Ok.

> Oleg.
>