Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:24:37 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage splat |
| |
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:39:57PM +0800, Arun Bhanu wrote: > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 03:14:14PM +0800, Arun Bhanu wrote: > > > I got the following splat while booting 2.6.37-rc1+ > > > (ff8b16d7e15a8ba2a6086645614a483e048e3fbf). > > > > > > [ 9.381536] =================================================== > > > [ 9.382380] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] > > > [ 9.382867] --------------------------------------------------- > > > [ 9.383412] kernel/pid.c:419 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > > > [ 9.383959] > > > [ 9.383959] other info that might help us debug this: > > > [ 9.383960] > > > [ 9.385599] > > > [ 9.385599] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > > > [ 9.386686] 1 lock held by readahead/365: > > > [ 9.387227] #0: (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<c05188f3>] sys_ioprio_set+0x84/0x261 > > > [ 9.387765] > > > [ 9.387765] stack backtrace: > > > [ 9.388840] Pid: 365, comm: readahead Not tainted 2.6.37-rc1-ab1.fc14.i686.PAE+ #1 > > > [ 9.389374] Call Trace: > > > [ 9.389909] [<c07e57ba>] ? printk+0x25/0x2b > > > [ 9.390453] [<c046b21a>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x7d/0x86 > > > [ 9.390986] [<c0459304>] find_task_by_pid_ns+0x3f/0x53 > > > [ 9.391521] [<c0459335>] find_task_by_vpid+0x1d/0x1f > > > [ 9.392050] [<c051891b>] sys_ioprio_set+0xac/0x261 > > > [ 9.392574] [<c046d80f>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfe/0x11f > > > [ 9.393110] [<c040951f>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x38 > > > > > > Complete dmesg and config attached. Let me know if you want me to test > > > any patches. > > > > Could you please try the patch at http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/29/168? > > Thanks for the pointer. With the above patch applied I am no longer > seeing the splat. > > Tested-by: Arun Bhanu <arun@bhanu.net>
Very good!!!
Looking over the patch again, the scope of the RCU read-side critical section needs to expand to cover the use of the pointer as well as the call to find_task_by_vpid(). So, for example:
case IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS: rcu_read_lock(); if (!who) p = current; else p = find_task_by_vpid(who); if (p) ret = set_task_ioprio(p, ioprio); rcu_read_unlock(); break; case IOPRIO_WHO_PGRP:
Otherwise, the task could go away before the last use.
Sergey, could you please make this change and re-post your patch?
Thanx, Paul
> > > -Arun > > [snip] > > -Arun
| |