Re: 3.9-rc1 NULL pointer crash at find_pid_ns

Sasha Levin
2013-03-07T18:27:29Z

On 03/07/2013 01:21 PM, ebiederm@xmission.com wrote:
> Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> On 03/07/2013 01:05 PM, ebiederm@xmission.com wrote:
>>> Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 03/07/2013 12:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 12:36 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like the hlist change is probably the issue, though it specifically
>>>>>> uses:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define hlist_entry_safe(ptr, type, member) \
>>>>>> (ptr) ? hlist_entry(ptr, type, member) : NULL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still looking at the code in question and it's assembly, but I can't
>>>>>> figure out what's going wrong. I was also trying to see what's so special
>>>>>> about this loop in find_pid_ns as opposed to the rest of the kernel code
>>>>>> that uses hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() but couldn't find out why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it somehow possible that if we rcu_dereference_raw() the same thing twice
>>>>>> inside the same rcu_read_lock() section we'll get different results? That's
>>>>>> really the only reason for this crash that comes to mind at the moment, very
>>>>>> unlikely - but that's all I have right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep
>>>>>
>>>>> #define hlist_entry_safe(ptr, type, member) \
>>>>> (ptr) ? hlist_entry(ptr, type, member) : NULL
>>>>>
>>>>> Is not safe, as ptr can be evaluated twice, and thats not good at all...
>>>>
>>>> ptr is being evaluated twice, but in this case this is an
>>>> rcu_dereference_raw() value within the same rcu_read_lock() section.
>>>>
>>>> Is it still problematic?
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>> Head in this instance the expression: &pid_hash[pid_hashfn(nr, ns)]
>>>
>>> And the crash clearly shows that when hilst_entry is being evaluated the
>>> HEAD is NULL.
>>
>> Okay, I'm even more confused now.
>>
>> The expression in question is:
>>
>> hlist_entry_safe(rcu_dereference_bh(hlist_first_rcu(head)))
>>
>> You're saying that "rcu_dereference_bh(hlist_first_rcu(head))" can change between
>> the two evaluations we do. That would mean that 'head' has changed in between, right?
>>
>> In that case, the list itself has changed - which means that RCU has changed the
>> list underneath us.
>>
>> hlist_first_rcu() doesn't have any side-effects, it doesn't modify the list whatsoever,
>> so the only thing that can change is 'head'. Why is it allowed to change if the list
>> is protected by RCU?
>
> The pointer to the first element of the list goes to NULL.
>
> With RCU pointers can change and the guranateee that is made is that if
> you follow a stale pointer the storage pointed to by the stale pointer
> does not become invalid until you exit the rcu critical section.

But there's nothing that guarantees that the pointers themselves won't change like
I thought. That would explain this issue.

Let me run with trinity for a day with the change proposed by Paul just to see
everything looks sane, and if it is I can send a patch to fix it.

Thanks,
Sasha