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 S1753079AbdATSPI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:15:08 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39982 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751303AbdATSPG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:15:06 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 19:14:00 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com>,
        Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
        Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prctl: propagate has_child_subreaper flag to every
        descendant
Message-ID: <20170120181359.GA17205@redhat.com>
References: <20170119164346.4214-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170119164346.4214-1-ptikhomirov@virtuozzo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/19, Pavel Tikhomirov wrote:
>
> Having these two
> differently behaving groups can lead to confusion. Also it is
> a problem for CRIU, as when we restore process tree we need to
> somehow determine which descendants belong to which group and
> much harder - to put them exactly to these group.

Hmm. could you explain how this change helps CRIU? I mean, why
restorer can't do prctl(CHILD_SUBREAPER) before the first fork?

Anyway, afaics the patch is sub-optimal and not correct...

> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1715,6 +1715,8 @@ struct task_struct {
>  	struct signal_struct *signal;
>  	struct sighand_struct *sighand;
>
> +	struct list_head csr_descendant;
> +

You don't need this new member and descendants_lock. task_struct has
the ->real_parent pointer so you can work the tree without recursion.

> +static void prctl_set_child_subreaper(struct task_struct *reaper, bool arg2)
> +{
> +	LIST_HEAD(descendants);
> +
> +	reaper->signal->is_child_subreaper = arg2;
> +	if (!arg2)
> +		return;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&descendants_lock);
> +	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> +
> +	list_add(&reaper->csr_descendant, &descendants);
> +
> +	while (!list_empty(&descendants)) {
> +		struct task_struct *tsk;
> +		struct task_struct *p;
> +
> +		tsk = list_first_entry(&descendants, struct task_struct,
> +				csr_descendant);
> +
> +		list_for_each_entry(p, &tsk->children, sibling) {

This is not enough. Every thread has its own ->children list, you need
to walk the sub-threads as well.

> +			 * If we've found child_reaper - skip descendants in
> +			 * it's subtree as they will never get out pidns
> +			 */
> +			if (is_child_reaper(task_pid(p)))
> +				continue;

Again, a child reaper can be multi-threaded, this check can be false
negative.

Probably is_child_reaper() should be renamed somehow and a new helper
makes sense... something like

	bool task_is_child_reaper(struct task_struct *p)
	{
		return same_thread_group(p, task_active_pid_ns(p)->child_reaper);
	}

Oleg.