On 11/5/24 02:08, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 11/4/24 22:15, Bernd Schubert wrote: >> On 11/4/24 01:28, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > ... >>> In general if you need to change something, either stick your >>> name, so that I know it might be a derivative, or reflect it in >>> the commit message, e.g. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: initial author >>> [Person 2: changed this and that] >>> Signed-off-by: person 2 >> >> Oh sorry, for sure. I totally forgot to update the commit message. >> >> Somehow the initial version didn't trigger. I need to double check to > > "Didn't trigger" like in "kernel was still crashing"? My initial problem was a crash in iov_iter_get_pages2() on process kill. And when I tested your initial patch IO_URING_F_TASK_DEAD didn't get set. Jens then asked to test with the version that I have in my branch and that worked fine. Although in the mean time I wonder if I made test mistake (like just fuse.ko reload instead of reboot with new kernel). Just fixed a couple of issues in my branch (basically ready for the next version send), will test the initial patch again as first thing in the morning. > > FWIW, the original version is how it's handled in several places > across io_uring, and the difference is a gap for !DEFER_TASKRUN > when a task_work is queued somewhere in between when a task is > started going through exit() but haven't got PF_EXITING set yet. > IOW, should be harder to hit. > Does that mean that the test for PF_EXITING is racy and we cannot entirely rely on it? Thanks, Bernd
