From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
paulmck@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sys: only rely on rcu for getpriority(2)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 18:41:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200512164130.GC28621@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200512160915.n3plwrwwrlpfqyrs@linux-p48b>
On 05/12, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> >do_each_pid_task(PIDTYPE_PGID) can race with change_pid(PIDTYPE_PGID)
> >which moves the task from one hlist to another. Yes, it is safe in
> >that task_struct can't go away. But still this is not right because
> >do_each_pid_task() can scan the wrong (2nd) hlist.
>
> Hmm I didn't think about this case, I guess this is also busted in
> ioprio_get(2) then.
agreed...
> >
> >could you explain in details why do you think this PF_EXITING check
> >makes any sense?
>
> My logic was that if the task with the highest prio exited while we
> were iterating the list, it would not be necessarily seen with rcu
> and the syscall would return the highest prio of a task that exited;
> and checking against PF_EXITING was a way to ignore such scenarios
> as we were going to race with it anyway.
Sorry, still can't understand. The PF_EXITING flag is not protected by
tasklist_lock or rcu_lock.
OK, if nothing else. Suppose that a prgp has a single process P, this
proces has already exited but its parent didn't do wait().
Currently getpriority() returns task_nice(P). With the PF_EXITING check
it will return -ESRCH. Hmm?
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-12 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-12 0:03 [PATCH -next v2 0/2] kernel/sys: reduce tasklist_lock usage get/set priorities Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 0:03 ` [PATCH 1/2] kernel/sys: only rely on rcu for getpriority(2) Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 15:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-12 16:09 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 16:41 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2020-05-12 16:58 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 18:16 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-12 0:03 ` [PATCH 2/2] kernel/sys: do not grab tasklist_lock for sys_setpriority(PRIO_PROCESS) Davidlohr Bueso
2020-05-12 16:10 ` 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=20200512164130.GC28621@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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