From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemcheck caught read from freed memory (cfq_free_io_context)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:27:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080403212753.GL8770@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804032244510.15758@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:49:23PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, so another approach would be to use a larger shadow block for
> > SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU slabs, so that each shadow location would have enough
> > room for an rcu_head and a size in addition to the flag. That would
> > trivialize tracking, or, more accurately, delegate such tracking to the
> > RCU infrastructure.
>
> Yeah, or just allocate some extra spaces for the RCU case and not
> overload the current shadow pages. But sounds good to me.
As long as we have an rcu_head for each memory block in the slab, I am
not to worried about where they are allocated.
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Of course, the case where the block gets reallocated before the RCU
> > grace period ends would also need to be handled (which my rough sketch
> > yesterday did -not- handle, by the way...).
> >
> > There are a couple of ways of doing this. Probably the easiest approach
> > is to add more state to the flag, so that the RCU callback would check
> > to see if reallocation had already happened. If so, it would update the
> > state to indicate that the rcu_head was again available, and would need to
> > repost itself if the block had been freed again after being reallocated.
> >
> > The other approach would be to defer actually adding the block to the
> > freelist until the grace period expired. This would be more accurate,
> > but also quite a bit more intrusive.
>
> We already talked about deferring the actual freeing in kmemcheck to
> better detect these use-after-free conditions with Vegard. So it's
> something that we probably want to do regardless of RCU.
Then it is especially important that the rcu_head be pre-allocated.
Otherwise we could get into out-of-memory deadlocks where a free
operation is blocked by an allocation operation. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-03 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-01 21:08 kmemcheck caught read from freed memory (cfq_free_io_context) Vegard Nossum
2008-04-01 21:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-01 22:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 6:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 7:19 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 10:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 7:17 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 7:20 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-04-02 7:24 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 7:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-02 7:31 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 10:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 10:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:33 ` Fabio Checconi
2008-04-02 11:43 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 12:36 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 12:36 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 12:55 ` Fabio Checconi
2008-04-02 12:58 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 12:58 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 13:16 ` Fabio Checconi
2008-04-02 16:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 13:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 13:41 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 15:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 16:31 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 17:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 13:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 13:40 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 16:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 11:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-02 11:07 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:11 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-02 11:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:18 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-02 17:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-04-02 11:14 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 11:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:32 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:42 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:53 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 12:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 12:28 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 13:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 13:43 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-02 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 12:34 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-02 16:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 16:15 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-04-02 16:32 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-04-02 18:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 19:53 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-02 20:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-03 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-03 19:49 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-04-03 21:27 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2008-04-02 16:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 17:31 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-04-02 10:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-02 10:46 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-04-02 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 10:54 ` Pekka J Enberg
2008-04-02 17:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-04-02 10:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-02 11:13 ` Jens Axboe
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=20080403212753.GL8770@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.com \
/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