> On 10/12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:47:59 -0400
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > I noticed a regression between 2.6.23-rc8-mm2 and 2.6.23-mm1 (with your
> > > hotfixes). User space threads seems to receive a ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK
> > > as soon as a thread does a pthread_join on them. The previous behavior
> > > was to wait for them to exit by taking a futex.
>
> No, the reason is that pthread_join() succeeds while it shouldn't. The main
> thread does exit_group() and kills the sub-thread sleeping in nanosleep.
> ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK is not delivered to the user-space (sub-thread is dying),
> it is just reported by gdb.
>
> > > I provide a toy program that shows the problem. On 2.6.23-rc8-mm2, it
> > > loops forever (as it should). On 2.6.23-mm1, it exits after 10 seconds.
>
> I bet something like this
>
> void *threda(void *arg)
> {
> for (;;)
> pause();
> return NULL;
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
> pthread_t tid;
>
> pthread_create(&tid, NULL, thread, NULL);
> pthread_join(tid, NULL);
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> won't work as well.
>
> > > Any idea on what may cause this problem ?
>
> Because do_fork() doesn't use parent_tidptr. At all! So it is very clear
> why 2.6.23-mm1 is broken.
>
> > Bisection shows that this problem is caused by these two patches:
> >
> > pid-namespaces-allow-cloning-of-new-namespace.patch
>
> This?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits&m=118712242002039
>
> Pavel, this patch has a subtle difference compared to what we discussed on
> containers list. It moves put_user(parent_tidptr) from copy_process() to
> do_fork(), so we don't report child's pid if copy_process() failed. I do
> not think this is bad, but Eric seems to disagree with such a change.
>
> But I can't understand why Andrew sees the same problem _after_ this patch!
>
> And which patch removed the "put_user(nr, parent_tidptr)" chunk?
>
> Andrew, could I get the kernel source after bisection somehow? (I am not
> familiar with guilt, will try to study it later)
>
> Mathieu, could you try the patch below?
>
