Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:04:36 -0200 | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Oops on 2.4.x invalid procfs i_ino value |
| |
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 01:46:27PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 04:35:18PM -0600, Brent Casavant wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:49:44PM -0600, Brent Casavant wrote: > > > >> On a related note, if it matters, on about half the crash dumps I've > > > >> looked at, I see a pid of 0 has been assigned to a user process, > > > >> tripping this same problem. I suspect there's another bug somewhere > > > >> that's allowing a pid of 0 to be chosen in the first place -- but I > > > >> don't totally discount that this problem may lay in SGI's patches to > > > >> this particular kernel -- I'll need to take a more thorough look. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:38:35PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > > > That's rather ominous. I'll pore over pid.c and see what's going on. > > > > Also, does the pid.c in your kernel version match 2.6.x-CURRENT? > > > > > > Ouch, 2.4.21; this will be trouble. So next, what patches atop 2.4.21? > > > > I wouldn't worry about the pid=0 issue -- I think it's most likely > > due to the PAGG patches (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/pagg) causing > > some sort of problem at process teardown (all the pid=0 processes are > > in the process of exiting). > > > > I'm more concerned about the (0 == pid & 0xffff) bug, which is present > > in the unpatched mainline 2.4.x kernel. It seems that the easiest fix > > is marking such pids as in-use at pidmap allocation, so that they are > > never assigned to real tasks. I've got the code almost done, but need > > to port it to top-of-tree before submitting a patch. > > Hi Brent, > > Wouldnt it be feasible to have another "procfs inode type" to indicate such > lower 16-bit zeroed pid's with a new type PROC_PID_INO_ZERO16BIT (or a better > name) and have fake_ino() handle these case by then using the upper 16-bits on > the inode for this "special" pid's. > > And have proc_pid_make_inode() and related code handle this new type? No? > > I'm not a big fan of making such pids unuseable for real tasks, so it would be > nice if we could come up a fix for the buggy proc inode logic.
Actually, while talking to wli on IRC:
#define PID_MAX 0x8000
So it shouldnt be a problem at all in mainline v2.4. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |