[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD0F261.6080302@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:05:37 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"containers@...ts.osdl.org" <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...t.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] freezer cgroup: Fix an RCU warning in cgroup_freezing_or_frozen()
>>>> with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU, a warning can be triggered when we
>>>> resume from suspend:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> include/linux/cgroup.h:533 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> task_freezer() calls task_subsys_state(), which needs to be
>>>> protected by rcu_read_lock or cgroup_mutex.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/cgroup_freezer.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c b/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
>>>> index 5038f4c..ac76983 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup_freezer.c
>>>> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ int cgroup_freezing_or_frozen(struct task_struct *task)
>>>> struct freezer *freezer;
>>>> enum freezer_state state;
>>>>
>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>> task_lock(task);
>>>> freezer = task_freezer(task);
>>>> if (!freezer->css.cgroup->parent)
>>>> @@ -60,6 +61,7 @@ int cgroup_freezing_or_frozen(struct task_struct *task)
>>>> else
>>>> state = freezer->state;
>>>> task_unlock(task);
>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>
>>>> return (state == CGROUP_FREEZING) || (state == CGROUP_FROZEN);
>>>> }
>>> Hmm cgroup_attach_task() does hold task_lock() over setting
>>> tsk->cgroups, so doesn't that also pin the task to the cgroup and thus
>>> the cgroup itself?
>> So you are advocating for the rcu_dereference check including the
>> task lock, correct?
>
> I think that might be correct yes, although I would prefer confirmation
> from someone who actually knows kernel/cgroup.c ;-)
>
You are right in that taking task_lock() is sufficient (I forgot
this lock rule), but it's not true that whatever locks are held
in the ->attach method can pin a task's cgroup.
So the right fix is including task_lock in rcu_deref check in
task_subsys_state(). I'll send a new fix.
--
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