On 05/11, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:36:25 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > static inline int is_user_space(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > - return p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM);
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + task_lock(p);
> > + ret = p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM);
> > + task_unlock(p);
> > + return ret;
> > }
>
> The whole function is racy, isn't it? I mean, the condition which it is
> testing can go from true->false or false->true at any instant after this
> function returns its now-wrong value.
>
> iow, callers of this function need to to something to prevent the expression
> `p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM);' from changing value _anyway_. In
> which case the new locking is not needed?
freeze_processes() first freezes user-space tasks only, then kernel threads.
Without task_lock() we can miss PF_BORROWED_MM and count the kernel thread
(which is doing use_mm()) as a user space process. This means it will be
frozen prematurely.
true->false means daemonize() or do_exit(), seems harmless.
false->true means exec from kernel space. That is why FREEZER_KERNEL_THREADS
in fact means all tasks, not only kernel threads.
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]
