Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> A pointer to a task_struct while it kind of sort of works. Is not
>> a good solution. The problem is that in a lot of cases we register
>> a pid to get a signal or something similar and then we never unregister
>> it. So by using a pointer to a trask_struct you effectively hold the
>> process in memory forever.
>
> this is not right. Both the PID and the task struct have the exact same
> lifetime rules, they HAVE to, to guard against pid reuse problems.
Yes PIDs reserved for the lifetime of the task_struct (baring minor
details). There are actually a few races in /proc where it can
see the task_struct after the pid has been freed (see the pid_alive macro
in sched.h)
However when used as a reference the number can live as long as you
want. The classic example is a pid file that can exist even after
you reboot a machine.
So currently a use of a PID as a reference to processes or process
groups can last forever. An example of this is the kernel is
the result of fcntl(fd, F_SETOWN). The session of a tty is similar.
Since the in kernel references have a lifetime that is completely
different than the lifetime of a process or a PID. It is
not safe to simply replace such references with a direct reference
to a task_struct (besides being technically impossible). Adding
those references could potentially increase the lifespan of a task_struct
for to the life of the kernel depending on the reference.
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]
