[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237454421.7867.27.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:20:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] cpuacct: Make cpuacct hierarchy walk in
cpuacct_charge() safe when rcupreempt is used.
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:06 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 02:28:11PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > cpuacct: Make cpuacct hierarchy walk in cpuacct_charge() safe when
> > > rcupreempt is used.
> > >
> > > cpuacct_charge() obtains task's ca and does a hierarchy walk upwards.
> > > This can race with the task's movement between cgroups. This race
> > > can cause an access to freed ca pointer in cpuacct_charge(). This will not
> >
> > Actually it can also end up access invalid tsk->cgroups. ;)
> >
> > get tsk->cgroups (cg)
> > (move tsk to another cgroup) or (tsk exiting)
> > -> kfree(tsk->cgroups)
> > get cg->subsys[..]
>
> Ok :) Here is the patch again with updated description.
>
> cpuacct: Make cpuacct hierarchy walk in cpuacct_charge() safe when
> rcupreempt is used.
>
> cpuacct_charge() obtains task's ca and does a hierarchy walk upwards.
> This can race with the task's movement between cgroups. This race
> can cause an access to freed ca pointer in cpuacct_charge() or access
> to invalid cgroups pointer of the task. This will not happen with rcu or
> tree rcu as cpuacct_charge() is called with preemption disabled. However if
> rcupreempt is used, the race is seen. Thanks to Li Zefan for explaining this.
>
> Fix this race by explicitly protecting ca and the hierarchy walk with
> rcu_read_lock().
>
> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
I would ditch the comment, it doesn't add anything.
The simple rule is: if you want RCU-safe, use rcu_read_lock().
preempt/irq disable isn't sufficient -- hasn't been for a long long
while.
After that,
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -9891,6 +9891,13 @@ static void cpuacct_charge(struct task_s
> return;
>
> cpu = task_cpu(tsk);
> +
> + /*
> + * preemption is already disabled here, but to be safe with
> + * rcupreempt, take rcu_read_lock(). This protects ca and
> + * hence the hierarchy walk.
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> ca = task_ca(tsk);
>
> do {
> @@ -9898,6 +9905,7 @@ static void cpuacct_charge(struct task_s
> *cpuusage += cputime;
> ca = ca->parent;
> } while (ca);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys = {
--
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