Re: [PATCH] rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call

[Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2027 bytes --]

On (11/07/10 19:01), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:04:43AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Users missing rcu_read_lock() when calling find_task_by_vpid():
> > > > 
> > > >   check_clock() in kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c
> > > 
> > > 	This one has read_lock(&tasklist_lock).
> > > 
> > Excuse me. Holding tasklist_lock lock does not help.
> > We must call rcu_read_lock() explicitly.
> > That's why 9728e5d6 "kernel/pid.c: update comment on find_task_by_pid_ns" was made.
> 
> OK, good point, there are a few more kernels of unpopped corn here.
>

Hello,
I prepared a patch for posix-cpu-timers. 

[PATCH] posix-cpu-timers: rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/3/257


	Sergey

 
> > I think there are users who needlessly call read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> > when they can use rcu_read_lock() instead.
> > But I don't know when to use read_lock(&tasklist_lock).
> > 
> > If read_lock(&tasklist_lock) is needed only when we want to access
> > the "struct task_struct" after rcu_read_unlock(), maybe it is cleaner to
> > use a helper like
> > 
> > struct task_struct *find_task_and_get(pid_t pid)
> > {
> > 	struct task_struct *task;
> > 	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > 	task = find_task_by_vpid(pid);
> > 	rcu_read_unlock();
> > 	if (task)
> > 		get_task_struct(task);
> > 	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > 	return task;
> > }
> > 
> > and hide tasklist_lock.
> 
> This makes a lot of sense to me!  That said, most of the current
> open-coded variants of your find_task_and_get() seem to have the
> rcu_read_unlock() after the get_task_struct() rather than before.  But I
> don't claim to understand the locking design of this part of the kernel
> well enough to say which is the best approach.
> 
> So, either way, will you be submitting the patches for this?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]