lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/2] pid: Replace pid bitmap implementation with IDR API
From
Date
On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 13:50 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -240,17 +230,11 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct
> > > pid_namespace *pid_ns)
> > >    *
> > >    */
> > >   read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > - nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, 1);
> > > - while (nr > 0) {
> > > - rcu_read_lock();
> > > -
> > > - task = pid_task(find_vpid(nr), PIDTYPE_PID);
> > > + nr = 2;
> > > + idr_for_each_entry_continue(&pid_ns->idr, pid, nr) {
> > > + task = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > >   if (task && !__fatal_signal_pending(task))
> > >   send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_FORCED,
> > > task);
> > > -
> > > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > > -
> > > - nr = next_pidmap(pid_ns, nr);
> > >   }
> > >   read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> >
> > Especially here.  I don't think pidmap_lock is held.  Is that IDR
> > iteration safe?
>
> Yes, this doesn't look right, we need rcu_read_lock() or pidmap_lock.
>
> And, we also need rcu_read_lock() for another reason, to protect
> "struct pid".

I think rcu_read_lock alone should do the trick, for both.

The IDR code specifically says that lookups are safe under just
the rcu_read_lock, and that only insertions and deletions need
a separate lock for synchronization.

Good catch.

--
All Rights Reversed.[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-10 15:45    [W:0.218 / U:1.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site