On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:18:44AM +0200, Tomasz Buchert wrote:
> Matt Helsley a écrit :
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:53:21PM +0200, Tomasz Buchert wrote:
> >> Writing 'FROZEN' to freezer.state file does not
> >> forbid the task to be moved away from its cgroup
> >> (for a very short time). Nevertheless the moved task
> >> can become frozen OUTSIDE its cgroup which puts
> >> discussed task in a permanent 'D' state.
> >>
> >> This patch forbids migration of either FROZEN
> >> or FREEZING tasks.
> >>
> >> This behavior was observed and easily reproduced on
> >> a single core laptop. Program and instructions how
> >> to reproduce the bug can be fetched from:
> >> http://pentium.hopto.org/~thinred/repos/linux-misc/freezer_bug.c
> >
> > Thanks for the report and the test code.
> >
> > I'm will try to reproduce this race in the next few hours and analyze
> > it since I'm not sure the patch really fixes the race -- it may only
> > make the race trigger less frequently.
> >
> > At the very least the patch won't break the current code since it's
> > essentially a more-strict version of is_task_frozen_enough() -- it lets
> > fewer tasks attach/detach to/from frozen cgroups.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Matt Helsley
>
> Hi Matt!
> I am a novice if it comes to the kernel and I find the cgroup_freezer
> code especially complicated, so definetely this may be not enough to fix that.
> Notice also that if you uncomment the line 55 in my testcase this will also
> trigger the race! This, however, makes sense since process may not be in the
> cgroup anymore
> and consequently won't be thawed.
OK, I triggered it with that. Interesting.
> I think that this patch fixes these problems because it does the flag
> checking in a right order:
> first freezing() is used and then frozen() which assures (see
> frozen_process()) that
> the race will not happen. Right? :)
I see what you mean. It still seems like it wouldn't actually fix the race --
just make it
harder to trigger. I think you're saying this is what happens without the patch:
Time "bug" goes through these states cgroup code checks for these
states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| freezing
| is_frozen? Nope.
| frozen
| is_freezing? Nope.
| <move>
V
But, without having carefully investigated the details, this could just as
easily happen
with your patch:
Time "bug" goes through these states cgroup code checks for these
states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| is_freezing? Nope.
| is_frozen? Nope.
| freezing
| <move>
| frozen
V
or:
Time "bug" goes through these states cgroup code checks for these
states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| is_freezing? Nope.
| is_frozen? Nope.
| freezing
| frozen
| <move>
V
Time "bug" goes through these states cgroup code checks for these
states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| is_freezing? Nope.
| freezing
| is_frozen? Nope.
| <move>
| frozen
V
or:
Time "bug" goes through these states cgroup code checks for these
states
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| is_freezing? Nope.
| freezing
| is_frozen? Nope.
| frozen
| <move>
V
(even with 1 cpu/core)
Your patch only improves things in the sense that it works for the first
example. We need to prevent the latter cases as well.
Cheers,
-Matt
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
