[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:19:08 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage - kernel/pid.c:419
invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
On 2010-11-10 17:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> (another try with the proper email address)
>
> On 11/09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Oleg! Greg, would you be willing to update your patch
>> to remove the comment? (Perhaps tasklist_lock as well...)
>
> Agreed, I think tasklock should be killed.
>
>
> But wait. Whatever we do, isn't this code racy? I do not see why, say,
> sys_ioprio_set(IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS) can't install ->io_context after
> this task has already passed exit_io_context().
>
> Jens, am I missed something?
Not sure, I think the original intent was for the tasklist_lock to
protect from a concurrent exit, but that looks like nonsense and it was
just there to protect the task lookup.
How about moving the ->io_context check and exit_io_context() in
do_exit() under the task lock? Coupled with a check for PF_EXITING in
set_task_ioprio().
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists