[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100618203854.GW915@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:38:54 -0700
From: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix the racy
check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic
Oleg Nesterov (oleg@...hat.com) wrote:
> check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() introduced by
> "softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task" commit ce9dbe24 looks
> absolutely wrong.
>
> - rcu_lock_break() does put_task_struct(). If the task has exited
> it is not safe to even read its ->state, nothing protects this
> task_struct.
>
> - The TASK_DEAD checks are wrong too. Contrary to the comment, we
> can't use it to check if the task was unhashed. It can be unhashed
> without TASK_DEAD, or it can be valid with TASK_DEAD.
>
> For example, an autoreaping task can do release_task(current)
> long before it sets TASK_DEAD in do_exit().
>
> Or, a zombie task can have ->state == TASK_DEAD but release_task()
> was not called, and in this case we must not break the loop.
>
> Change this code to check pid_alive() instead, and do this before we
> drop the reference to the task_struct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> ---
Acked-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>
--
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