pagg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] Minor PAGG attach/detach semantic change for 2.6.11

To: Erik Jacobson <erikj@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] Minor PAGG attach/detach semantic change for 2.6.11
From: Kaigai Kohei <kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:35:00 +0900
Cc: Kingsley Cheung <kingsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, pagg@xxxxxxxxxxx, tonyt@xxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050927201020.GA30433@xxxxxxx>
References: <20050617014512.GA10285@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050927201020.GA30433@xxxxxxx>
Sender: pagg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
Hi,

Erik Jacobson wrote:
I fixed this in the RCU version of pnotify I'm working per the lse-tech community discussion - thanks for the reminder the other day (in a non-list email).

If the RCU version crashes and burns for some reason and we go back to
the non-CUu one, I'll need to make the fix there too.  The function now
looks like this.  I hope this is what you had in mind (untested as of
this moment).

In my understanding, any _write_ operations can not be implemented
without locking, even if we can use RCU.
(In addition, RCU conscious writing/update style is required.)

For example, pnotify permits to attach a new pnotify_subscriber object
to another task. If someone calls pnotify_subscribe() for other task
which is doing fork(), there is a possibility to break the
pnotify_subscriber_list of victim task.

Therefore, procedures with updates such __pnotify_fork() should be
serialized by somethig locking. RCU is so effective for seldom-write/
frequentrly-read pass, such as SELinux's Access Vector Cache(AVC).
But it's not omnipotence, and it restricts write methodology.

In the past, I made a proposition of applying RCU for PAGG. But it might
be inappropriate for pnotify/PAGG as a general framework.


I have attention to another respect. The current pnotify implementation
requires to hold pnotify_event_list_sem before calling pnotify_get_events().
Threfore, we must repeat read_lock/unlock(&tasklist_lock) on
do_each_thread()/while_each_thread() loop as follows:

----------------------------
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
do_each_thread(g, p) {
        get_task_struct(p);
        read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);

        down_read(&p->pnotify_subscriber_list_sem);
        subscriber = pnotify_get_subscriber(p, events->name);
                :
        up_read(&p->pnotify_subscriber_list_sem);
        read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
        << checking, p is dead or not ? >>
} while_each_thread(g, p);
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
----------------------------

I'm happy, if pnotify_subscriber_list would be protected by rwlock.

If rwlock is used, we can not implement pnotify_subscribe() with current
spec.  But is it impossible to prepare pnotify_subscribe_atomic() or
pnotify_subscribe_bind() which associates task_struct with pre-allocated
pnotify_events object ?

---- in rwlock world :-) ---
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
do_each_thread(g, p) {
        read_lock(&p->pnotify_subscriber_list_rwlock);
        subscriber = pnotify_get_subscriber(p, events->name);
                :
        read_unlock(&p->pnotify_subscriber_list_rwlock);
} while_each_thread(g, p);
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
----------------------------

Thanks,


/**
 * __pnotify_fork - Add kernel module subscriber to same subscribers as parent
 * @to_task: The child task that will inherit the parent's subscribers
 * @from_task: The parent task
 *
 * Used to attach a new task to the same subscribers the parent has in its
 * subscriber list.
 *
 * The "from" argument is the parent task.  The "to" argument is the child
 * task.
 *
 * See Documentation/pnotify.txt for details on
 * how to handle return codes from the attach function pointer.
 *
 * Locking: The to_task is currently in-construction, so we don't
 * need to worry about write-locks.  We do need to be sure the parent's
 * subscriber list, which we copy here, doesn't go away on us.  This is
 * done via RCU.
 *
 */
int
__pnotify_fork(struct task_struct *to_task, struct task_struct *from_task)
{
        struct pnotify_subscriber *from_subscriber;
        int ret;

        /* We need to be sure the parent's list we copy from doesn't disappear 
*/
        rcu_read_lock();

        list_for_each_entry_rcu(from_subscriber, 
&from_task->pnotify_subscriber_list, entry) {
                struct pnotify_subscriber *to_subscriber = NULL;

                to_subscriber = pnotify_subscribe(to_task, 
from_subscriber->events);
                if (!to_subscriber) {
                        ret=-ENOMEM;
                        __pnotify_exit(to_task);
                        rcu_read_unlock();
                        return ret;
                }
                ret = to_subscriber->events->fork(to_task, to_subscriber,
                  from_subscriber->data);
        
                rcu_read_unlock(); /* no more to do with the parent's data */

rcu_read_unlovk(); should be deployed outside of the 
list_for_each_entry_rcu(){...}.


                if (ret < 0) {
                        /* Propagates to copy_process as a fork failure */
                        /* No __pnotify_exit because there is one in the 
failure path
                         * for copy_process in fork.c */
                        return ret; /* Fork failure */
                }
                else if (ret > 0) {
                        /* Success, but fork function pointer in the 
pnotify_events structure
                         * doesn't want the kenrel module subscribed */
                        /* Again, this is the in-construction-child so no write 
lock */
                        pnotify_unsubscribe(to_subscriber);
                }
        }

        return 0;       /* success */
}

--
Linux Promotion Center, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>