From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] exec: Conceal the other threads from wakeups during exec
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:50:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sgd7zl1c.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200731062804.GA26171@redhat.com> (Oleg Nesterov's message of "Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:28:05 +0200")
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
> Eric, I won't comment the intent, but I too do not understand this idea.
>
> On 07/30, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> [This change requires more work to handle TASK_STOPPED and TASK_TRACED]
>
> Yes. And it is not clear to me how can you solve this.
I was imagining something putting TASK_STOPPED and TASK_TRACED in a loop
that verified they should be in that state before exiting so they could
handle spurious wake ups.
There are a many subtlties in that code, especially in the conversion
fo TASK_STOPPED to TASK_TRACED. So I suspect something more would be
required but I have not looked yet to see how tricky that would be.
>> [This adds a new lock ordering dependency siglock -> pi_lock -> rq_lock ]
>
> Not really, ttwu() can be safely called with siglock held and it takes
> pi_lock + rq_lock. Say, signal_wake_up().
Good point.
>> +int make_task_wakekill(struct task_struct *p)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int cpu, success = 0;
>> + struct rq_flags rf;
>> + struct rq *rq;
>> + long state;
>> +
>> + /* Assumes p != current */
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + /*
>> + * If we are going to change a thread waiting for CONDITION we
>> + * need to ensure that CONDITION=1 done by the caller can not be
>> + * reordered with p->state check below. This pairs with mb() in
>> + * set_current_state() the waiting thread does.
>> + */
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
>> + smp_mb__after_spinlock();
>> + state = p->state;
>> +
>> + /* FIXME handle TASK_STOPPED and TASK_TRACED */
>> + if ((state == TASK_KILLABLE) ||
>> + (state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)) {
>> + success = 1;
>> + cpu = task_cpu(p);
>> + rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>> + rq_lock(rq, &rf);
>> + p->state = TASK_WAKEKILL;
>
> You can only do this if the task was already deactivated. Just suppose it
> is preempted or does something like
>
> set_current_sate(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> if (CONDITION) {
> // make_task_wakekill() sets state = TASK_WAKEKILL
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> return;
> }
>
> schedule();
You are quite right.
So that bit of code would need to be:
if (!task->on_rq)
goto out;
if ((state == TASK_KILLABLE) ||
(state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)) {
...
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-31 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-27 21:03 [RFC][PATCH] exec: Freeze the other threads during a multi-threaded exec Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-28 0:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-28 12:39 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-28 13:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-28 18:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-30 13:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-30 22:56 ` [RFC][PATCH] exec: Conceal the other threads from wakeups during exec Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-30 23:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-31 17:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-31 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-31 20:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-07-31 6:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-31 16:50 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2020-07-28 9:41 ` [RFC][PATCH] exec: Freeze the other threads during a multi-threaded exec Aleksa Sarai
2020-07-28 12:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=87sgd7zl1c.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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).