Re: futex question

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:36 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 18:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > > do. It does not feel right. Currently, with or without my change,
> > > such a thing would indefinitely block other waiters on the same
> > > futex.
> > 
> > Right. Which completely defeats the purpose of the robust list. Will
> > have a look tomorrow.
> 
> Right, so mm_release() which is meant to destroy the old mm context
> actually does exit_robust_list(), but the problem is that it does so on
> the new mm, not the old one that got passed down to mm_release().
> 
> The other detail is that exit_robust_list() doesn't clear
> current->robust_list.
> 
> The problem with the patch send my Ani is that it clears the robust
> lists before the point of no return, so on a failing execve() we'd have
> messed up the state.
> 
> Making exit_robust_list() deal with an mm that is not the current mm is
> interesting indeed.

Hmm...

static int exec_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
        struct task_struct *tsk;
        struct mm_struct * old_mm, *active_mm;

        /* Notify parent that we're no longer interested in the old VM */
        tsk = current;
        old_mm = current->mm;
        mm_release(tsk, old_mm);

        if (old_mm) {
                /*
                 * Make sure that if there is a core dump in progress
                 * for the old mm, we get out and die instead of going
                 * through with the exec.  We must hold mmap_sem around
                 * checking core_state and changing tsk->mm.
                 */
                down_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
                if (unlikely(old_mm->core_state)) {
                        up_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
                        return -EINTR;
                }
        }
        task_lock(tsk);
        active_mm = tsk->active_mm;
        tsk->mm = mm;
        tsk->active_mm = mm;
        activate_mm(active_mm, mm);
        task_unlock(tsk);
        arch_pick_mmap_layout(mm);
        if (old_mm) {
                up_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
                BUG_ON(active_mm != old_mm);
                mm_update_next_owner(old_mm);
                mmput(old_mm);
                return 0;
        }
        mmdrop(active_mm);
        return 0;
}

Actually calls mm_release() before the flip, so the below might actually
be sufficient?

---
 kernel/fork.c |   10 ++++++++--
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 266c6af..4c20fff 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -570,12 +570,18 @@ void mm_release(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm)
 
 	/* Get rid of any futexes when releasing the mm */
 #ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX
-	if (unlikely(tsk->robust_list))
+	if (unlikely(tsk->robust_list)) {
 		exit_robust_list(tsk);
+		tsk->robust_list = NULL;
+	}
 #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
-	if (unlikely(tsk->compat_robust_list))
+	if (unlikely(tsk->compat_robust_list)) {
 		compat_exit_robust_list(tsk);
+		tsk->compat_robust_list = NULL;
+	}
 #endif
+	if (unlikely(!list_empty(&tsk->pi_state_list)))
+		exit_pi_state_list(tsk);
 #endif
 
 	/* Get rid of any cached register state */

--
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/