oom_kill: add rcu_read_lock() into find_lock_task_mm()

find_lock_task_mm() expects it is called under rcu or tasklist lock, but
it seems that at least oom_unkillable_task()->task_in_mem_cgroup() and
mem_cgroup_out_of_memory()->oom_badness() can call it lockless.

Perhaps we could fix the callers, but this patch simply adds rcu lock
into find_lock_task_mm().  This also allows to simplify a bit one of its
callers, oom_kill_process().
Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Sergey Dyasly <dserrg@gmail.com>
Cc: Sameer Nanda <snanda@chromium.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Cc: "Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: "Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@intel.com>
Acked-by: NDavid Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

mm/oom_kill.c

@@ -102,14 +102,19 @@ struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
 {
 	struct task_struct *t;
 
+	rcu_read_lock();
+
 	for_each_thread(p, t) {
 		task_lock(t);
 		if (likely(t->mm))
-			return t;
+			goto found;
 		task_unlock(t);
 	}
+	t = NULL;
+found:
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
-	return NULL;
+	return t;
 }
 
 /* return true if the task is not adequate as candidate victim task. */
@@ -461,10 +466,8 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	}
 	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
 	p = find_lock_task_mm(victim);
 	if (!p) {
-		rcu_read_unlock();
 		put_task_struct(victim);
 		return;
 	} else if (victim != p) {
@@ -490,6 +493,7 @@ void oom_kill_process(struct task_struct *p, gfp_t gfp_mask, int order,
 	 * That thread will now get access to memory reserves since it has a
 	 * pending fatal signal.
 	 */
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_process(p)
 		if (p->mm == mm && !same_thread_group(p, victim) &&
 		    !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) {