On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 09:45:50PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > Nice work - thanks. Yes, both an extra cpuset count and a negative > cpuset count are bad news, opening the door to the usual catastrophes. > > Would you like the honor of submitting the patch to add a task_lock > to cpuset_exit()? If you do, be sure to fix, or at least remove, > the cpuset_exit comment lines:
I will try to send out a patch later today to fix this bug in mainline cpuset code. I happened to notice this race with my rcfs patch and observed same is true with cpuset/container code also. > * We don't need to task_lock() this reference to tsk->cpuset, > * because tsk is already marked PF_EXITING, so attach_task() won't > * mess with it, or task is a failed fork, never visible to attach_task. Sure, I had seen that. > So, in real life, this would be a difficult race to trigger. Agreed, but good to keep code clean isn't it? :) > Thanks for finding this. Wellcome! -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
