Re: [PATCH 1/7] cgroup: cgroup_subsys->fork() should be calledafter the task is added to css_set

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Sun Oct 21 2012 - 15:10:28 EST

On 10/16, Tejun Heo wrote:
> cgroup_subsys->fork() is invoked way before the new task is added to
> the css_set.

Plus, it called before this task (and even its task_struct) was fully

All I can say is: personally I like this patch, it also simplifies

But I am in no position to ack it. I seem to forget everything (not
too much ;) I ever knew about this code.

A couple of off-topic questions. With or without this patch I do not
understand cgroup_fork,

* We don't need to task_lock() current because current->cgroups
* can't be changed concurrently here. The parent obviously hasn't
* exited and called cgroup_exit(), and we are synchronized against
* cgroup migration through threadgroup_change_begin().
child->cgroups = current->cgroups;

How so? threadgroup_change_begin() is only called if CLONE_THREAD.
So in theory this copy + atomic_add looks racy...

And it seems that fork() can race with cgroup iterator. post_fork
will notice use_task_css_set_links, but until then the child belongs
to the parent's css and it is not "visible" to iterator (and right
after cgroup_fork() it is not visible to do_each_thread() if
use_task_css_set_links is not set).

For example. Suppose that the child migrates to another cgroup after
copy_process() makes it visible to the user-space. Then update_if_frozen
sets CGROUP_FROZEN (again, cgroup_iter_next do not see this child).

Now, post_fork calls freezer_fork() and hits BUG_ON(CGROUP_FROZEN).

But again, I do not blame this patch.

I am starting to think again about a big-rw-lock around copy_process.
Recently I tried to add one around dup_mmap for uprobes, but perhaps
cgroups can use it too...


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