[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hxmh7yV8ePUhY_7hOuG=JrbZZcNvV88bWcUmwG9X0W04A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:32:14 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lots of suspicious RCU traces
First of all, thanks a lot for your report.
2012/10/24 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>:
> On (10/24/12 20:06), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> >
>> > small question,
>> >
>> > ptrace_notify() and forward calls are able to both indirectly and directly call schedule(),
>> > /* direct call from ptrace_stop()*/,
>> > should, in this case, rcu_user_enter() be called before tracehook_report_syscall_exit(regs, step)
>> > and ptrace chain?
>>
>> Well, I don't really understand this magic... but why?
>>
>
> My understanding is (I may be wrong) that we can schedule() from ptrace chain to
> some arbitrary task, which will continue its execution from the point where RCU assumes
> CPU as not idle, while CPU in fact still in idle state -- no one said rcu_idle_exit()
> (or similar) prior to schedule() call.
Yeah but when we are in syscall_trace_leave(), the CPU shouldn't be in
RCU idle mode. That's where the bug is. How do you manage to trigger
this bug?
>
> if so, does the same apply to in_user?
--
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