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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).