Re: Possible race between cgroup_attach_proc and de_thread, andquestionable code in de_thread.

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Sun Aug 14 2011 - 13:43:11 EST

Sorry for delay, just noticed this thread...

On 07/27, NeilBrown wrote:
> The race as I understand it is with this code:
> list_replace_rcu(&leader->tasks, &tsk->tasks);
> list_replace_init(&leader->sibling, &tsk->sibling);
> tsk->group_leader = tsk;
> leader->group_leader = tsk;
> which seems to be called with only tasklist_lock held, which doesn't seem to
> be held in the cgroup code.
> If the "thread_group_leader(leader)" call in cgroup_attach_proc() runs before
> this chunk is run with the same value for 'leader', but the
> while_each_thread is run after, then the while_read_thread() might loop
> forever. rcu_read_lock doesn't prevent this from happening.

Yes. This was already discussed. See

Damn. I forgot about this completely.

> The code in de_thread() is actually questionable by itself.
> "list_replace_rcu" cannot really be used on the head of a list - it is only
> meant to be used on a member of a list.
> To move a list from one head to another you should be using
> list_splice_init_rcu().

Hmm... can't understand this part.

And just in case... list_replace_rcu() looks fine afaics. The real problem
is release_task(old_leader) which does list_del_rcu(old_leader->thread_group),
this is what breaks while_each_thread().

> The ->tasks list doesn't seem to have a clearly distinguished 'head'

Exactly. This is the problem.

But: you seem to confused ->tasks and ->thread_group ;)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at