From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG 2.6.36-rc6] list corruption in module_bug_finalize
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:48:34 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201010051448.34984.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1010032141410.14550@localhost6.localdomain6>
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 06:21:08 am Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Current mainline triggers a list corruption bug in
> module_bug_finalize(). dmesg excerpt below.
>
> The corresponding code says:
>
> /*
> * Strictly speaking this should have a spinlock to protect against
> * traversals, but since we only traverse on BUG()s, a spinlock
> * could potentially lead to deadlock and thus be counter-productive.
> */
> list_add(&mod->bug_list, &module_bug_list);
>
> I can see the traversal problem vs. BUG(), but what's protecting the
> list_add() ? BKL probably did, but is that true anymore ?
I've never even *seen* this code before :(
Looks like it went through Adrian Bunk to Andrew, but despite the fact that
it (foolishly) doesn't touch kernel/module.c, it's generic code and I should
have seen it. It did change the linux/module.h header.
So, it used to be protected by module_mutex, but Linus and I cleaned that up.
So, we need a lock around this list for adding and removal. I'd use
list_add_rcu to try to help the lockless traversal too...
And moving it from all the archs into kernel/module.c would be a nice bonus.
Nice catch!
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-05 4:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-03 19:51 [BUG 2.6.36-rc6] list corruption in module_bug_finalize Thomas Gleixner
2010-10-04 11:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-04 22:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-10-04 23:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-05 1:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-05 5:14 ` Rusty Russell
2010-10-05 7:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-10-05 15:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-05 16:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-10-05 17:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-10-05 17:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-10-06 9:10 ` Rusty Russell
2010-10-05 4:18 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2010-10-05 11:08 ` Adrian Bunk
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=201010051448.34984.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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