[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091211163521.GC6803@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:35:21 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] Fix various __task_cred related invalid RCU
assumptions
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:39:06PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > While auditing the read_lock(&tasklist_lock) sites for a possible
> > conversion to rcu-read_lock() I stumbled over an unprotected user of
> > __task_cred in kernel/sys.c
>
> I'm sure last time I looked, spinlock primitives implied RCU read locks.
> Maybe I was mistaken or maybe it's changed. Whatever, good catch, Thomas!
It did indeed change with the split of the old synchronize_kernel()
primitive into the synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_sched() primitives
in 2.6.12 -- after this point, synchronize_rcu() was only guaranteed
to respect "real" rcu_read_lock()-base critical sections. But actual
failures would not show up until PREEMPT_RCU was introduced into 2.6.25.
The -rt effort rooted out a bunch of these sorts of problems, but we
clearly missed a few.
Thanx, Paul
--
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