From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752435Ab0HJAeJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:34:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21111 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757814Ab0HJAeD (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:34:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:31:21 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Miles Lane , LKML Subject: Re: 2.6.35 - INFO: kernel/signal.c:660 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Message-ID: <20100810003121.GA3778@redhat.com> References: <20100809171329.GF3026@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100809171329.GF3026@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 11:18:07PM -0400, Miles Lane wrote: > > [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] > > --------------------------------------------------- > > kernel/signal.c:660 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 > > 1 lock held by udevd/670: > > #0: (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}, at: [] do_exit+0x252/0x671 > > stack backtrace: > > Pid: 670, comm: udevd Not tainted 2.6.35 #15 > > Call Trace: > > [] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa6 > > [] check_kill_permission+0x9d/0x132 > > [] group_send_sig_info+0x1a/0x3d > > [] do_exit+0x34e/0x671 > > [] do_group_exit+0x78/0xa3 > > [] sys_exit_group+0x12/0x16 > > [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > Thank you again for your testing efforts! > > This one is a bit odd. exit_signals() holds either the tasklist_lock > or the ->sighand->siglock over its signal manipulations, so this is > not the code path triggering the above. I might be missing something, > but I don't see either hrtimer_cancel() or exit_itimers() attempting > to send signals. Agreed, this is strange and shouldn't happen. Perhaps, this kernel lack's David's 694f690d27dadccc8cb9d90532e76593b61fe098 "CRED: Fix RCU warning due to previous patch fixing __task_cred()'s checks" patch? Oleg.