Re: [PATCH] rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call

[Tetsuo Handa]

Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (10/29/10 13:16), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Interesting...
> > 
> > The task-list lock is read-held at this point, which should mean that
> > the PID mapping cannot change.  The lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held()
> > function does lockdep_is_held(&tasklist_lock), which must therefore
> > only be checking for write-holding the lock.  The fix would be to
> > make lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held() check for either read-holding or
> > write-holding tasklist lock.
> > 
> > Or is there some subtle reason that read-holding the tasklist lock is
> > not sufficient?

This was discussed in the thread at http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2009/12/10/4517520 .
Quoting from one of posts in that thead http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/2/8/4536388

| Usually tasklist gives enough protection, but if copy_process() fails
| it calls free_pid() lockless and does call_rcu(delayed_put_pid().
| This means, without rcu lock find_pid_ns() can't scan the hash table
| safely.

And now the patch that adds

	rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_held());

was merged in accordance with that comment.
Therefore, I thing below change is not good.

> Should it be changed to (let's say)
> 
> struct task_struct *find_task_by_pid_ns(pid_t nr, struct pid_namespace *ns)
> {
> -	rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_held());
> +	rcu_lockdep_assert(rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held());
> 	return pid_task(find_pid_ns(nr, ns), PIDTYPE_PID);
> }

Regards.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/