From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kui-Feng Lee <kuifeng@fb.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the skip_if_dup_files check
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 22:19:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230827201909.GC28645@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e254a6db-66eb-8bfc-561f-464327a1005a@linux.dev>
On 08/25, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> On 8/25/23 10:04 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >Forgot to mention in the changelog...
> >
> >In any case this doesn't look right. ->group_leader can exit before other
> >threads, call exit_files(), and in this case task_group_seq_get_next() will
> >check task->files == NULL.
>
> It is okay. This won't be affecting correctness. We will end with
> calling bpf program for 'next_task'.
Well, I didn't mean it is necessarily wrong, I simply do not know.
But let's suppose that we have a thread group with the main thread M + 1000
sub-threads. In the likely case they all have the same ->files, CLONE_THREAD
without CLONE_FILES is not that common.
Let's assume the BPF_TASK_ITER_TGID case for simplicity.
Now lets look at task_file_seq_get_next() which passes skip_if_dup_files == 1
to task_seq_get_next() and thus to task_group_seq_get_next().
Now, in this case task_seq_get_next() will return non-NULL only once (OK, unless
task_file_seq_ops.stop() was called), it will return the group leader M first,
then after task_file_seq_get_next() "reports" all the fd's of M and increments
info->tid, the next task_seq_get_next(&info->tid, true) should return NULL because
of the skip_if_dup_files check in task_group_seq_get_next().
Right?
But. if the group leader M exits then M->files == NULL. And in this case
task_seq_get_next() will need to "inspect" all the sub-threads even if they all
have the same ->files pointer.
No?
Again, I am not saying this is a bug and quite possibly I misread this code, but
in any case the skip_if_dup_files logic looks sub-optimal and confusing to me.
Nevermind, please forget. This is minor even if I am right.
Thanks for rewiev!
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-27 20:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-25 16:18 [PATCH 0/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: use __next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 1/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of next_thread() Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:45 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 2/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: cleanup the usage of get/put_task_struct Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 3/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: fix the skip_if_dup_files check Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 17:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:52 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-27 20:19 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2023-08-28 1:18 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-28 10:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-29 0:30 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-30 23:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-31 11:29 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-31 12:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:49 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 4/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: kill next_task Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:55 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 5/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: simplify the "next tid" logic Oleg Nesterov
2023-08-25 22:57 ` Yonghong Song
2023-08-25 16:19 ` [PATCH 6/6] bpf: task_group_seq_get_next: use __next_thread() rather than next_thread() 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=20230827201909.GC28645@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kuifeng@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/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).