lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lots of suspicious RCU traces
On (10/25/12 00:32), Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> First of all, thanks a lot for your report.
>
> 2012/10/24 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>:
> > On (10/24/12 20:06), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >> >
> >> > small question,
> >> >
> >> > ptrace_notify() and forward calls are able to both indirectly and directly call schedule(),
> >> > /* direct call from ptrace_stop()*/,
> >> > should, in this case, rcu_user_enter() be called before tracehook_report_syscall_exit(regs, step)
> >> > and ptrace chain?
> >>
> >> Well, I don't really understand this magic... but why?
> >>
> >
> > My understanding is (I may be wrong) that we can schedule() from ptrace chain to
> > some arbitrary task, which will continue its execution from the point where RCU assumes
> > CPU as not idle, while CPU in fact still in idle state -- no one said rcu_idle_exit()
> > (or similar) prior to schedule() call.
>
> Yeah but when we are in syscall_trace_leave(), the CPU shouldn't be in
> RCU idle mode. That's where the bug is. How do you manage to trigger
> this bug?
>

strace -f <anything>


-ss


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-25 08:21    [W:0.081 / U:1.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site