From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
Tycho Andersen <tandersen@netflix.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group leaders
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 14:50:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZbQpPknTTCyiyxrP@tycho.pizza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240125140830.GA5513@redhat.com>
Hi Oleg,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:08:31PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> What do you think?
Thank you, it passes all my tests.
> + /* unnecessary if do_notify_parent() was already called,
> + we can do better */
> + do_notify_pidfd(tsk);
"do better" here could be something like,
diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
index efe8f1d3a6af..7e545393f2f5 100644
--- a/kernel/exit.c
+++ b/kernel/exit.c
@@ -742,6 +742,7 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead)
bool autoreap;
struct task_struct *p, *n;
LIST_HEAD(dead);
+ bool needs_notify = true;
write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
forget_original_parent(tsk, &dead);
@@ -756,16 +757,21 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead)
!ptrace_reparented(tsk) ?
tsk->exit_signal : SIGCHLD;
autoreap = do_notify_parent(tsk, sig);
+ needs_notify = false;
} else if (thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
- autoreap = thread_group_empty(tsk) &&
- do_notify_parent(tsk, tsk->exit_signal);
+ autoreap = false;
+ if (thread_group_empty(tsk)) {
+ autoreap = do_notify_parent(tsk, tsk->exit_signal);
+ needs_notify = false;
+ }
} else {
autoreap = true;
}
/* unnecessary if do_notify_parent() was already called,
we can do better */
- do_notify_pidfd(tsk);
+ if (needs_notify)
+ do_notify_pidfd(tsk);
if (autoreap) {
tsk->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD;
but even with that, there's other calls in the tree to
do_notify_parent() that might double notify.
This brings up another interesting behavior that I noticed while
testing this, if you do a poll() on pidfd, followed quickly by a
pidfd_getfd() on the same thread you just got an event on, you can
sometimes get an EBADF from __pidfd_fget() instead of the more
expected ESRCH higher up the stack.
I wonder if it makes sense to abuse ->f_flags to add a PIDFD_NOTIFIED?
Then we can refuse further pidfd syscall operations in a sane way, and
also "do better" above by checking this flag from do_pidfd_notify()
before doing it again?
Tycho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-26 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-23 15:34 [PATCH v3 0/3] pidfds for non thread group leaders Tycho Andersen
2024-01-23 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] pidfd: allow pidfd_open() on non-thread-group leaders Tycho Andersen
2024-01-23 19:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-23 21:10 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-23 22:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-24 1:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-25 14:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-25 17:17 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-25 17:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-25 18:03 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-25 18:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-25 18:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-25 18:36 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-26 9:49 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-26 9:42 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-26 14:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-26 9:47 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-26 14:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-27 14:26 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-26 21:50 ` Tycho Andersen [this message]
2024-01-27 10:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-27 14:33 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-27 15:55 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-27 16:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-27 17:20 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-27 19:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-27 20:44 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-27 21:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-29 11:23 ` [RFC PATCH] pidfd: implement PIDFD_THREAD flag for pidfd_open() Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-29 13:41 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-29 14:31 ` Tycho Andersen
2024-01-29 15:14 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-30 11:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-31 18:11 ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-01-31 18:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-31 19:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2024-01-31 19:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-01-31 19:46 ` Christian Brauner
2024-01-31 19:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-02-01 13:30 ` Christian Brauner
2024-02-01 13:39 ` Christian Brauner
2024-02-01 19:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2024-01-23 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] selftests/pidfd: add non-thread-group leader tests Tycho Andersen
2024-01-23 15:34 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] clone: allow CLONE_THREAD | CLONE_PIDFD together Tycho Andersen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZbQpPknTTCyiyxrP@tycho.pizza \
--to=tycho@tycho.pizza \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tandersen@netflix.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome