lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] exit: Move preemption fixup up, move blocking operations down
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:13 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:06:57 +0100
> Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
>
> > With CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y and CONFIG_CGROUPS=y, kernel oopses in
> > non-preemptible context look untidy; after the main oops, the kernel prints
> > a "sleeping function called from invalid context" report because
> > exit_signals() -> cgroup_threadgroup_change_begin() -> percpu_down_read()
> > can sleep, and that happens before the preempt_count_set(PREEMPT_ENABLED)
> > fixup.
> >
> > It looks like the same thing applies to profile_task_exit() and
> > kcov_task_exit().
> >
> > Fix it by moving the preemption fixup up and the calls to
> > profile_task_exit() and kcov_task_exit() down.
[...]
> > + if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
> > + pr_info("note: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
> > + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current),
> > + preempt_count());
>
> This should be more than a pr_info. It should also probably state the
> "Dazed and confused, best to reboot" message.
>
> Because if something crashed in a non preempt section, it may likely be
> holding a lock that it will never release, causing a soon to be deadlock!

I didn't write that code, I'm just moving it around. :P But I guess if
you want, I can change it in the same patch... something like this on
top? Does that look reasonable?

if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
- pr_info("note: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
+ pr_emerg("note: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d,
system might deadlock, please reboot\n",
current->comm, task_pid_nr(current),
preempt_count());
preempt_count_set(PREEMPT_ENABLED);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-05 23:31    [W:0.152 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site