On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:45:50PM +0800, Pengfei Xu wrote: > On 2022-11-23 at 15:37:58 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > I have no idea how to solve the situation without violating the pid_namespace > > rules and unshare() semantics (although I wish unshare(CLONE_NEWPID) had a less > > error prone behaviour with allowing creating more than one task belonging to the > > same namespace). > > > > So probably having an SRCU read side critical section within exit_notify() is > > not a good idea, is there a solution to work around that for rcu tasks? > > > Thanks for the analysis! > Add one more information: I tried to revert this commit only on top of > v6.1-rc5 mainline by script, but it caused kernel make to fail, it could not > confirm the bisect information is 100% accurate if I could not pass the > revert step verification. I just provide all the information I could. No problem, I managed to reproduce with latest upstream. I don't think the bisected commit is the culprit though, it may perhaps just make the issue more likely to happen. Thanks. > > And this issue is too difficult to me. > If I find more clue, I will update the eamil. > > Thanks! > BR. > > > Thanks.
