From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do_exit
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:53:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1ve7ngmp2.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071128012129.GD6840@v2.random> (Andrea Arcangeli's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:21:29 +0100")
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 02:38:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> I don't see why the schedule() will not return? Because the task has
>> PF_EXITING set? Doesn't TASK_DEAD do that?
>
> Ouch, I assumed you couldn't sleep safely anymore in release_task
> given it's the function that will free the task structure itself and
> there was no preempt related action anywhere close to it!
> delayed_put_task_struct can be called if a quiescent point is reached
> and any scheduling would exactly allow it to run (it requires quite a
> bit of a race, with local irq triggering a reschedule and the timer
> irq invoking the tasklet to run to free the task struct before do_exit
> finishes and all other cpus in quiescent state too).
>
> So a corollary question is how can it be safe to call
> preempt_disable() after call_rcu(delayed_put_task_struct)?
> Back in sles9 preempt_disable was implemented as
> _raw_write_unlock(&tasklist_lock) and it happened _before_
> release_task, and scheduling there wouldn't return because PF_DEAD was
> already set. If mainline can come back, it will crash for a different
> reason because the task struct is long gone by the time
> release_task+schedule() runs. Either ways, still a kernel crashing bug
> there is. Or is there some magic that prevents call_rcu + schedule to
> invoke the rcu callback?
I don't quite see where it comes from but there is another reference
on the task struct held by the scheduler That we don't drop until
finish_task_switch with exit_state == TASK_DEAD.
So since we have one additional reference the task_struct won't
get freed.
We don't set TASK_DEAD until much later.
> So you may need to apply this one too (this one is needed to fix the
> second bug, my previous patch is needed after applying this one):
No. We should be fine.
In fact it looks like this is just a sles9 issue and mainline is
fine, as we can safely schedule until just before the end of do_exit.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-28 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-27 13:20 /proc dcache deadlock in do_exit Andrea Arcangeli
2007-11-27 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2007-11-28 1:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-11-28 1:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-11-28 2:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-11-28 1:53 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2007-11-28 1:43 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-11-28 16:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2007-11-28 2:09 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=m1ve7ngmp2.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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