On 02/14, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 15:05 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -900,7 +900,7 @@ static int attach_to_pi_owner(u32 uval, union futex_key 
> > *key,
> >     if (!p)
> >             return -ESRCH;
> >
> > -   if (!p->mm) {
> > +   if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {
> >             put_task_struct(p);
> >             return -EPERM;
> >     }
>
> Futexes aren't the only naughty checkers,

Yes, this is the common mistake,

> a quick search shows that, at
> least, the oom killer and proc have this same problem.

oom looks fine, note the PF_KTHREAD check in oom_unkillable(). It check ->mm
for another reason, to figure out if this task has passed exit_mm() or not.

proc looks fine too at first glance... we do not care if this mm was adopted
via use_mm() or not.

> Should we make
> this generic and update accordingly? ie:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 8db31ef..b0d37d6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1991,6 +1991,11 @@ extern void thread_group_cputime_adjusted(struct 
> task_struct *p, cputime_t *ut,
>  #define tsk_used_math(p) ((p)->flags & PF_USED_MATH)
>  #define used_math() tsk_used_math(current)
>
> +static inline bool task_is_kthread(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +     return task->flags & PF_KTHREAD;
> +}

Perhaps... but PF_KTHREAD looks self-documented too ;)

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to