[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46EFE6D7.3070105@bull.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:55:19 +0200
From: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ...
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:17:28 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm getting tons of this, and X fails to start
>>
>>CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y
>>CONFIG_SYSVIPC_SYSCTL=y
>># CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
>># CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
>>CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
>>CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y
>>CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
>>
>>BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:47
>>in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
>
>
> OK, this fixes the locking here:
>
> --- a/ipc/util.c~ipc-integrate-ipc_checkid-into-ipc_lock-fix-2
> +++ a/ipc/util.c
> @@ -295,7 +295,6 @@ int ipc_addid(struct ipc_ids* ids, struc
>
> spin_lock_init(&new->lock);
> new->deleted = 0;
> - rcu_read_lock();
> spin_lock(&new->lock);
> return id;
> }
> @@ -691,7 +690,7 @@ struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_lock(struct ip
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> }
> -
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> return out;
> }
>
Well, reviewing the code I found another place where the
rcu_read_unlock() was missing.
I'm so sorry for the inconvenience. It's true that I should have tested
with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y :-(
Now, the ltp tests pass even with this option set...
In attachment you'll find a patch thhat
1) adds the missing rcu_read_unlock()
2) replaces Andrew's fix with a new one: the rcu_read_lock() is now
taken in ipc_lock() / ipc_lock_by_ptr() and released in ipc_unlock(),
exactly as it was done in the ref code.
Regards,
Nadia
View attachment "ipc_missing_rcu_locks.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1627 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists