linux-kernel - Re: New RCU related warning due to rcu_preempt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:05:56 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New RCU related warning due to rcu_preempt_depth() changes

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:42:47AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> It looks like commit 7298b03 ("rcu: Move __rcu_read_lock() and
> __rcu_read_unlock() to per-CPU variables") is causing the following
> warning (I've added the extra fields on the second line):
> 
> [   77.330920] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> mm/memory.c:3933
> [   77.336571] in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, preempt count: 0,
> preempt offset: 0, rcu depth: 1, pid: 5669, name: trinity
> [   77.344135] no locks held by trinity/5669.
> [   77.349644] Pid: 5669, comm: trinity Tainted: G        W
> 3.4.0-rc3-next-20120417-sasha-dirty #83
> [   77.354401] Call Trace:
> [   77.355956]  [<ffffffff810e83f3>] __might_sleep+0x1f3/0x210
> [   77.358811]  [<ffffffff81198eaf>] might_fault+0x2f/0xa0
> [   77.361997]  [<ffffffff810e3228>] schedule_tail+0x88/0xb0
> [   77.364671]  [<ffffffff826a01d3>] ret_from_fork+0x13/0x80
> 
> As you can see, rcu_preempt_depth() returns 1 when running in that
> context, which looks pretty odd.

Ouch!!!

So it looks like I missed a place where I need to save and restore
the new per-CPU rcu_read_lock_nesting and rcu_read_unlock_special
variables.  My (probably hopelessly naive) guess is that I need to add
a rcu_switch_from() and rcu_switch_to() into schedule_tail(), but to
make rcu_switch_from() take the task_struct pointer as an argument,
passing in prev.

Does this make sense, or am I still missing something here?

							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/