From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
stable@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:17:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090223051709.GA5990@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090222030030.GD6860@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 07:00:30PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 07:37:20PM +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > 2009/2/21 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>:
[ . . . ]
> > Okay, I don't really think it's an error. The if (user) test happens
> > at the very beginning and gcc decides to reuse %edx. GDB doesn't know
> > this, so it thinks the parameter changed, but at this point the
> > parameter simply won't be used anymore.
> >
> > So you're right: The value can't be trusted (after entry, anyway).
>
> OK. So at least the compiler is sane. ;-)
>
> And the fact that RCU Classic behaves the same as hierarchical RCU
> pretty clearly points at some issue with the quiescent-state check code:
>
> void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
> {
> if (user ||
> (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() &&
> hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
> rcu_qsctr_inc(cpu);
> rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
> } else if (!in_softirq()) {
> rcu_bh_qsctr_inc(cpu);
> }
> raise_softirq(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
> }
>
> In the case you traced earlier, we interrupted out of kernel code, yet
> somehow arrived at rcu_qsctr_inc(). We know that "user" really was 0,
> thanks to your careful analysis, so the issue must be in the other
> clause. Since we interrupted out of mainline kernel code, in_softirq()
> should have returned 0, and hardirq_count() should also have met the
> above condition.
>
> You mentioned some concern about idle_cpu() separately, and if idle_cpu()
> was returning 1, then RCU would most certainly decide that it was in a
> quiescent state and that it could end the current grace period.
Hello, Vegard,
Could you please try out the following patch? I am not 100% confident
of it on non-x86 architectures, nor during the time that non-boot CPUs
start up (though this patch should not break non-boot CPUs any more than
they might already be broken).
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The boot CPU runs in the context of its idle thread during boot-up.
During this time, idle_cpu(0) will always return nonzero, which will
fool Classic and Hierarchical RCU into deciding that a large chunk of
the boot-up sequence is a big long quiescent state. This in turn causes
RCU to prematurely end grace periods during this time.
This patch creates a new global variable that is set to 1 just before
the boot CPU first enters the scheduler, after which the idle task
really is idle.
Located-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
init/main.c | 3 +++
kernel/rcuclassic.c | 4 +++-
kernel/rcutree.c | 4 +++-
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index 8442094..51f4b71 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ static char *static_command_line;
static char *execute_command;
static char *ramdisk_execute_command;
+int idle_task_is_really_idle; /* set to 1 late in boot. */
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* Setup configured maximum number of CPUs to activate */
unsigned int __initdata setup_max_cpus = NR_CPUS;
@@ -463,6 +465,7 @@ static noinline void __init_refok rest_init(void)
* at least once to get things moving:
*/
init_idle_bootup_task(current);
+ idle_task_is_really_idle = 1;
preempt_enable_no_resched();
schedule();
preempt_disable();
diff --git a/kernel/rcuclassic.c b/kernel/rcuclassic.c
index bd5a900..a758fa6 100644
--- a/kernel/rcuclassic.c
+++ b/kernel/rcuclassic.c
@@ -678,8 +678,10 @@ int rcu_needs_cpu(int cpu)
*/
void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
{
+ extern int idle_task_is_really_idle;
+
if (user ||
- (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() &&
+ (idle_cpu(cpu) && idle_task_is_really_idle && !in_softirq() &&
hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
/*
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index b2fd602..e996d85 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -947,8 +947,10 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
*/
void rcu_check_callbacks(int cpu, int user)
{
+ extern int idle_task_is_really_idle;
+
if (user ||
- (idle_cpu(cpu) && !in_softirq() &&
+ (idle_cpu(cpu) && idle_task_is_really_idle && !in_softirq() &&
hardirq_count() <= (1 << HARDIRQ_SHIFT))) {
/*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-23 6:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-20 13:41 [PATCH] mm: fix lazy vmap purging (use-after-free error) Vegard Nossum
2009-02-20 13:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-20 13:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-20 14:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-20 14:18 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-20 15:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-20 14:51 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-20 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-20 16:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-20 16:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-20 17:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-20 17:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-20 23:51 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-21 1:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-21 9:30 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-21 17:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-21 18:08 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-21 18:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-21 18:37 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-22 3:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 5:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2009-02-23 8:24 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-23 15:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-23 9:17 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-23 9:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-23 15:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 13:29 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-23 16:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 17:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-23 19:10 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-23 19:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 19:59 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-23 20:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-23 19:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-23 20:04 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-23 20:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-23 20:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-23 20:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-24 3:23 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-24 3:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-21 19:21 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-20 16:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-20 16:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-20 15:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20090223051709.GA5990@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).