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 S1753792AbdBARTQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:19:16 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56952 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753771AbdBARTN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:19:13 -0500
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 18:19:11 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: dserrg@gmail.com, snanda@chromium.org, rientjes@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about replacing while_each_thread().
Message-ID: <20170201171911.GA18136@redhat.com>
References: <201702011947.DBD56740.OMVHOLOtSJFFFQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201702011947.DBD56740.OMVHOLOtSJFFFQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Tetsuo,

On 02/01, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> Is rcu_read_lock() sufficient (i.e.
>
>   rcu_read_lock();
>   for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
>     (...snipped...)
>   }
>   rcu_read_unlock();
>
> is OK) for "can't go away" ?

Yes, this should work just fine,

> Likewise, IOPRIO_WHO_PGRP case are using
>
>   rcu_read_lock();
>   do {
>     if ((pgrp) != NULL)
>       hlist_for_each_entry_rcu((p), &(pgrp)->tasks[PIDTYPE_PGID], pids[PIDTYPE_PGID].node) {
>         {
>           struct task_struct *tg___ = p;
>           do {
>             (...snipped...)
>           } while_each_thread(tg___, p);
>           p = tg___;
>         }
>         if (PIDTYPE_PGID == PIDTYPE_PID)
>           break;
>       }
>   } while (0);
>   rcu_read_unlock();
>
> sequence which I guess it is unsafe as well.

Hmm, indeed, I forgot there is another while_each_thread() hidden in
do_each_pid_thread()

> In this case updating do_each_pid_thread() to use for_each_thread() and
> updating while_each_pid_thread() not to use while_each_thread() is
> the correct fix?

Yes, I think so, just

	--- a/include/linux/pid.h
	+++ b/include/linux/pid.h
	@@ -191,10 +191,10 @@ pid_t pid_vnr(struct pid *pid);
	 #define do_each_pid_thread(pid, type, task)				\
		do_each_pid_task(pid, type, task) {				\
			struct task_struct *tg___ = task;			\
	-		do {
	+		for_each_thread(tg__, task) {
	 
	 #define while_each_pid_thread(pid, type, task)				\
	-		} while_each_thread(tg___, task);			\
	+		}							\
			task = tg___;						\
		} while_each_pid_task(pid, type, task)
	 #endif /* _LINUX_PID_H */


but perhaps we can also cleanup it... the usage of 'tg___' doesn't look nice
either way, so perhaps

	#define do_each_pid_thread(pid, type, task) do {			\
		struct task_struct *tg___;					\
		do_each_pid_task(pid, type, tg___) {				\
			for_each_thread(tg__, task) {

	#define while_each_pid_thread(pid, type, task)				\
			}							\
		} while_each_pid_task(pid, type, task);				\
		} while (0)

will look a bit better? up to you.

Oleg.