[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1324633794.24803.48.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:49:54 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Motohiro Kosaki <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 09:42 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> I found TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition.
> I would like to report this bug. Please check it.
How did you find it? Manual inspection? Inspection of a core-dump?
> Here is the sequence how it occurs.
>
> ----------------------------------+-----------------------------
> |
> CPU A | CPU B
> ----------------------------------+-----------------------------
> TASK A calls exit()....
>
> do_exit()
>
> exit_mm()
> down_read(mm->mmap_sem);
>
> rwsem_down_failed_common()
>
> set TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> set waiter.task <= task A
> list_add to sem->wait_list
> :
> raw_spin_unlock_irq()
> (I/O interruption occured)
>
> __rwsem_do_wake(mmap_sem)
>
> list_del(&waiter->list);
> waiter->task = NULL
> wake_up_process(task A)
> try_to_wake_up()
> (task is still
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> p->on_rq is still 1.)
>
> ttwu_do_wakeup()
> (*A)
> :
> (I/O interruption handler finished)
>
> if (!waiter.task)
> schedule() is not called
> due to waiter.task is NULL.
>
> tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING
>
> :
> check_preempt_curr();
> :
> task->state = TASK_DEAD
> (*B)
> <--- set TASK_RUNNING (*C)
>
>
>
> schedule()
> (exit task is running again)
> BUG_ON() is called!
> --------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> This is very bad senario.
> But, I suppose this phenomenon is able to occur on a guest system of
> virtual machine too.
>
> Please fix it.
>
> I suppose task->pi_lock should be held when task->state is changed to
> TASK_DEAD like the following patch (not tested yet).
> Because try_to_wake_up() hold it before checking task state.
I don't think this can actually happen, note the raw_spin_unlock_wait()
in do_exit() long before setting TASK_DEAD, that should synchronize
against the in-progress wakeup and ensure its finished and has set
TASK_RUNNING. Spurious wakeups after that won't see a state to act on
and will terminate immediately without touching state.
> ---
> kernel/exit.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-3.2-rc4/kernel/exit.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.2-rc4.orig/kernel/exit.c
> +++ linux-3.2-rc4/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -1038,8 +1038,11 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
>
> preempt_disable();
> exit_rcu();
> +
> + spin_lock(&tsk->pi_lock, flags);
> /* causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(). */
> tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
> + spin_unlock(&tsk->pi_lock, flags);
> schedule();
> BUG();
> /* Avoid "noreturn function does return". */
Note, ->pi_lock is a raw_spinlock_t, those should've been raw_spin_*().
--
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