lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] prctl: add PR_{GET,SET}_KILL_DESCENDANTS_ON_EXIT
On 11/28, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 11/27, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> >>
> >> @@ -704,6 +713,9 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead)
> >> struct task_struct *p, *n;
> >> LIST_HEAD(dead);
> >>
> >> + if (group_dead && tsk->signal->kill_descendants_on_exit)
> >> + walk_process_tree(tsk, kill_descendant_visitor, NULL);
> >
> > Well, this is not exactly right, at least this is suboptimal in that
> > other sub-threads can too call walk_process_tree(kill_descendant_visitor)
> > later for no reason.
>
> Oleg I think I am missing something.

No, it is stupid me who can't read,

> Reading kernel/exit.c I see "group_dead = atomic_dec_and_test(&tsk->signal->live)".
> Which seems like enough to ensure exactly one task/thread calls walk_process_tree.

Of course you right, sorry for confusion.

To me it would be more clean to call walk_process_tree(kill_descendant_visitor)
unconditionally in find_new_reaper() right before "if (has_child_subreaper)", but
then we will need to shift read_lock(tasklist) from walk_process_tree().

So I think the patch is mostly fine, the only problem I can see is that
PR_SET_KILL_DESCENDANTS_ON_EXIT can race with PR_SET_CHILD_SUBREAPER, they both
need to update the bits in the same word.

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-29 13:34    [W:0.073 / U:6.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site