Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]> writes:
>>>1.
>>>flags are neither atomic nor protected with any lock.
>> flags are atomic as they are a machine word. So they do not
>> require a read/modify write so they will either be written
>> or not written. Plus this allows write-sharing of the appropriate
>> cache line which is very polite (assuming the line is not shared with
>> something else)
> Eric I'm familiar with SMP, thanks :)
> Why do you write all this if you agreed below that have problems with it?
To establish a baseline of understanding and because you made an assertion
that is counter to my understanding.
>>>2. due to 1) you code is buggy. in this respect do_exit() is not serialized
> with
>>>copy_process().
>> Yes. I may need a memory barrier in there. I need to think
>> about that a little more.
> memory barrier doesn't help. you really need to think about.
Except for instances where you need an atomic read/modify/write the
only primitives you have are reads, writes and barriers.
I have all of the correct reads and writes therefore the only thing
that could help are barriers if the logic is otherwise sane.
A write barrier to ensure the write of flags is visible before I write
the kill signal will ensure the write of flags is globally visible
first. Although I am having a hard time convincing myself even that
matters.
>>>3. due to the same 1) reason
>>> > + kill_pspace_info(SIGKILL, (void *)1, tsk->pspace);
>>>can miss a task being forked. Bang!!!
>>
>> Well the only bad thing that can happen is that I get a process that
>> can run and observe pid == 1 has exited. So Bang!! is not too
>> painful.
> And what about references to pspace->child_reaper which was freed already?
The assumes that release_task() is called synchronously with do_exit
which is not the case. Looking at the code I do think release_task()
for the pspace leader can be called too soon. But that is really
has nothing to do with whether or not all of it's children got sent
SIGKILL.
That is a significant issue, that needs to be fixed before I submit
this piece of code for inclusion into the kernel.
The issue is depending on the context is that a process actively running
in kernel space could proceed for a long time before it returns to user
space and receives a signal. In that span of time it could execute just
about any code in the kernel.
Kirill thank you for spotting this.
This exchange seems to have a hostile and not a cooperative tone so
I will finish the investigation and bug fixing elsewhere.
I expect that there might be a few more issues like this. My only
expectation was that the code was complete enough to discuss semantics
and kernel mechanisms for creating a namespaces, and the code has
successfully served that purpose.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
