[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005262127.26235.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:27:24 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] Crash in load_module() while freeing args
On Wed, 26 May 2010 05:30:58 pm Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:17:32 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not able to reproduce the issue with the following commit reverted:
> > >
> > > commit 480b02df3aa9f07d1c7df0cd8be7a5ca73893455
> > > Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> > > Date: Wed May 19 17:33:39 2010 -0600
> > >
> > > module: drop the lock while waiting for module to complete initialization.
> >
> > Hmm. That does seem to be buggy. We can't just drop and re-take the lock:
> > that may make sense _internally_ as far as resolve_symbol() itself is
> > concerned, but the caller will its own local variables, and some of those
> > will no longer be valid if the lock was dropped.
>
> Well, yes, obviously I missed something :( I'll look at it tonight after
> Arabella is asleep.
See if you can spot it (I acked the patch, so I can't point fingers):
free_core:
module_free(mod, mod->module_core);
/* mod will be freed with core. Don't access it beyond this line! */
free_percpu:
percpu_modfree(mod);
Only a year after Masami fixed that and added the comment, too :(
I suspect that the increased parallelism enabled by this patch uncovered this
bug. Does this fix it?
(Side note: the locking should be simplified. No code before simplify_symbols
actually needs the lock, so we should grab it just for that, then again at the
end. We use kobjects to protect us from multiple loads as a side-effect, but
we should move that registration to the end).
Subject: module: fix reference to mod->percpu after freeing module.
The comment about the mod being freed is self-explanatory, but neither
Tejun nor I read it. This bug was introduced in 259354deaa, after it
had previously been fixed in 6e2b75740b. How embarrassing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
--- a/kernel/module.c
+++ b/kernel/module.c
@@ -2031,6 +2031,7 @@ static noinline struct module *load_modu
long err = 0;
void *ptr = NULL; /* Stops spurious gcc warning */
unsigned long symoffs, stroffs, *strmap;
+ void __percpu *percpu;
mm_segment_t old_fs;
@@ -2175,6 +2176,8 @@ static noinline struct module *load_modu
goto free_mod;
sechdrs[pcpuindex].sh_flags &= ~(unsigned long)SHF_ALLOC;
}
+ /* Keep this around for failure path. */
+ percpu = mod_percpu(mod);
/* Determine total sizes, and put offsets in sh_entsize. For now
this is done generically; there doesn't appear to be any
@@ -2480,7 +2483,7 @@ static noinline struct module *load_modu
module_free(mod, mod->module_core);
/* mod will be freed with core. Don't access it beyond this line! */
free_percpu:
- percpu_modfree(mod);
+ free_percpu(percpu);
free_mod:
kfree(args);
kfree(strmap);
--
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