On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:17:34 -0700 "Paul Menage" <menage@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >  I don't fully understand the race.  Both paths hold css_set_lock.
> >
> >  Can you describe it in more detail please?
> 
> Task A starts exiting, passes the check for unlinking current->cg_list.

So cgroup_exit() sees !list_empty(tsk->cg_list)

And the list_del() sets tsk->cg_list to LIST_POISON[12], which still means
!list_empty().  Or we remove that debugging code and avoid writing to
tsk->cg_list, and it _still_ is !list_empty().

> Before it completely exits task B does the very first
> cgroup_iter_begin() call (via reading a cgroups tasks file) which
> links all tasks in to their css_set objects via tsk->cg_list.

But it won't link this task, because it's !list_empty().

> Then task A finishes exiting and is freed, but doesn't unlink from the cg_list.
> 
> >
> >  afacit the task at *p could set PF_EXITING immediately after this code has
> >  tested PF_EXITING and then the task at *p could proceed until we hit the
> >  same race (whatever that is).
> 
> The important fact there is that the task sets PF_EXITING *before* it
> checks whether it needs to unlink from current->cg_list.
> 
> Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers