From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:02:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100618190251.GA17297@redhat.com> (raw)
check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() introduced by
"softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task" commit ce9dbe24 looks
absolutely wrong.
- rcu_lock_break() does put_task_struct(). If the task has exited
it is not safe to even read its ->state, nothing protects this
task_struct.
- The TASK_DEAD checks are wrong too. Contrary to the comment, we
can't use it to check if the task was unhashed. It can be unhashed
without TASK_DEAD, or it can be valid with TASK_DEAD.
For example, an autoreaping task can do release_task(current)
long before it sets TASK_DEAD in do_exit().
Or, a zombie task can have ->state == TASK_DEAD but release_task()
was not called, and in this case we must not break the loop.
Change this code to check pid_alive() instead, and do this before we
drop the reference to the task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
kernel/hung_task.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- 35-rc2/kernel/hung_task.c~CHT_FIX_RCU_LOCK_BREAK 2009-12-18 19:05:38.000000000 +0100
+++ 35-rc2/kernel/hung_task.c 2010-06-18 20:06:11.000000000 +0200
@@ -113,15 +113,20 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_
* For preemptible RCU it is sufficient to call rcu_read_unlock in order
* exit the grace period. For classic RCU, a reschedule is required.
*/
-static void rcu_lock_break(struct task_struct *g, struct task_struct *t)
+static bool rcu_lock_break(struct task_struct *g, struct task_struct *t)
{
+ bool can_cont;
+
get_task_struct(g);
get_task_struct(t);
rcu_read_unlock();
cond_resched();
rcu_read_lock();
+ can_cont = pid_alive(g) && pid_alive(t);
put_task_struct(t);
put_task_struct(g);
+
+ return can_cont;
}
/*
@@ -148,9 +153,7 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_t
goto unlock;
if (!--batch_count) {
batch_count = HUNG_TASK_BATCHING;
- rcu_lock_break(g, t);
- /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */
- if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD)
+ if (!rcu_lock_break(g, t))
goto unlock;
}
/* use "==" to skip the TASK_KILLABLE tasks waiting on NFS */
next reply other threads:[~2010-06-18 19:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-18 19:02 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2010-06-18 19:34 ` while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken? Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 21:08 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-18 22:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 22:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 17:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 17:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 18:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 19:02 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-21 20:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 21:19 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-22 14:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-07-08 23:59 ` Roland McGrath
2010-07-09 0:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-07-09 1:01 ` Roland McGrath
2010-07-09 16:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 20:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 21:22 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-21 21:38 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-22 21:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-22 22:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-23 15:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-24 18:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-24 18:50 ` Chris Friesen
2010-06-24 22:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-25 0:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-25 3:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-25 10:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-07-09 0:52 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-24 21:14 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-25 3:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-07-09 0:41 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-24 21:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-25 3:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-25 9:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-28 23:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-29 13:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-29 15:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-29 17:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-19 5:00 ` Mandeep Baines
2010-06-19 5:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-19 15:44 ` Mandeep Baines
2010-06-19 19:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 20:11 ` [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-18 20:38 ` Mandeep Singh Baines
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=20100618190251.GA17297@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jmarchan@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=msb@google.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
/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).