Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in specialcondition

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So since we never call schedule() the p->on_rq thing will always be
> true. This means we don't need to consider all the icky ttwu after that,
> it also means the whole thing is inside ->pi_lock.
>
> So we only have to consider the exact case Yasunori-San illustrated, and
> waiting on ->pi_lock is sufficient.

Yes, and this is why I think Yasunori-san's patch should work. Because,
to remind, it adds unlock_wait(pi_lock).

> However I think your proposal:
>
> >                 for (;;) {
> >                         tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
> >                         schedule();
> >                 }
>
> should equally work, if we hit the race and call schedule() with ->state
> = TASK_RUNNING,

Yes, in this case everything is fine, but we can shedule() with TASK_DEAD
state. preempt_disable() can't (and shouldn't) prevent deactivate_task().

To simplify, try_to_wake_up() does

		spin_lock(pi_lock);

		if (!(p->state & state))
			goto out;

		/* WINDOW */

		if (p->on_rq) {
			... everything is fine ...
		}

		p->state = TASK_WAKING;
		ttwu_queue(p, cpu);

And the exiting task does

	// but do not sleep ...
	current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
							// ttwu() checks ->state
	...
	tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
	schedule();
		-> deactivate_task();
		-> tsk->on_rq = 0;
		-> finish_task_switch();

							// ttwu() checks ->on_rq

In theory it can do this all in the WINDOW above. In this case we
can wake it up again, after finish_task_switch()-put_task_struct().

No?

Oleg.

--
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/