From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:16:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101029201648.GK2367@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101029125550.GA3932@swordfish.minsk.epam.com>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 03:55:50PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Commit 4221a9918e38b7494cee341dda7b7b4bb8c04bde "Add RCU check for
> find_task_by_vpid()" introduced rcu_lockdep_assert to find_task_by_pid_ns.
> Assertion failed in sys_ioprio_get. The patch is fixing assertion
> failure in ioprio_set as well.
>
> ===================================================
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> kernel/pid.c:419 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
>
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> 1 lock held by iotop/4254:
> #0: (tasklist_lock){.?.?..}, at: [<ffffffff811104b4>] sys_ioprio_get+0x22/0x2da
>
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 4254, comm: iotop Not tainted
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff810656f2>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xaa/0xb2
> [<ffffffff81053c67>] find_task_by_pid_ns+0x4f/0x68
> [<ffffffff81053c9d>] find_task_by_vpid+0x1d/0x1f
> [<ffffffff811104e2>] sys_ioprio_get+0x50/0x2da
> [<ffffffff81002182>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/fs/ioprio.c b/fs/ioprio.c
> index 748cfb9..666343d 100644
> --- a/fs/ioprio.c
> +++ b/fs/ioprio.c
> @@ -113,8 +113,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioprio_set, int, which, int, who, int, ioprio)
Interesting...
The task-list lock is read-held at this point, which should mean that
the PID mapping cannot change. The lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held()
function does lockdep_is_held(&tasklist_lock), which must therefore
only be checking for write-holding the lock. The fix would be to
make lockdep_tasklist_lock_is_held() check for either read-holding or
write-holding tasklist lock.
Or is there some subtle reason that read-holding the tasklist lock is
not sufficient?
Thanx, Paul
> case IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS:
> if (!who)
> p = current;
> - else
> + else {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> p = find_task_by_vpid(who);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> if (p)
> ret = set_task_ioprio(p, ioprio);
> break;
> @@ -202,8 +205,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(ioprio_get, int, which, int, who)
> case IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS:
> if (!who)
> p = current;
> - else
> + else {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> p = find_task_by_vpid(who);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + }
> if (p)
> ret = get_task_ioprio(p);
> break;
>
> --
> 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/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-29 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-29 12:55 [PATCH] rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-10-29 20:16 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-10-30 9:32 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-10-30 13:14 ` Tetsuo Handa
2010-10-30 21:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-10-30 23:33 ` Tetsuo Handa
2010-11-07 19:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-07 22:04 ` Tetsuo Handa
2010-11-08 3:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 10:28 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-11-08 13:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-11-08 16:01 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2010-11-08 16:18 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-11-08 16:37 ` Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101029201648.GK2367@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.