Re: freezer problems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02/19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 19 February 2007 21:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> > > @@ -199,6 +189,10 @@ static void thaw_tasks(int thaw_user_spa
> > >
> > >         do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > > +               if (freezer_should_skip(p))
> > > +                       cancel_freezing(p);
> > > +       } while_each_thread(g, p);
> > > +       do_each_thread(g, p) {
> > >                 if (!freezeable(p))
> > >                         continue;
> > 
> > Any reason for 2 separate do_each_thread() loops ?
> 
> Yes.  If there is a "freeze" request pending for the vfork parent (TIF_FREEZE
> set), we have to cancel it before the child is unfrozen, since otherwise the
> parent may go freezing after we try to reset PF_FROZEN for it.

I see, thanks... thaw_process() doesn't take TIF_FREEZE into account.

But doesn't this mean we have a race?

Suppose that try_to_freeze_tasks() failed. It does cancel_freezing() for each
process before return, but what if some thread already checked TIF_FREEZE and
(for simplicity) it is preempted before frozen_process() in refrigerator().

thaw_tasks() runs, ignores this task (P), returns. P gets CPU, and becomes
frozen, but nobody will thaw it.

No?

Oleg.

-
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]
  Powered by Linux