[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1413447404.24793.67.camel@tkhai>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:16:44 +0400
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Vladimir Davydov" <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched: Revert delayed_put_task_struct() and fix use
after free
В Чт, 16/10/2014 в 09:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:46:07AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > --- x/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ x/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct tas
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr);
> > > - if (cur->pid == 0) /* idle */
> > > + if (is_idle_task(cur) || (curr->flags & PF_EXITING))
> > > cur = NULL;
> > >
> > > /*
> > >
> >
> > Looks like, we have to use the same fix for task_numa_group().
>
> Don't think so, task_numa_group() is only called from task_numa_fault()
> which is on 'current' and neither idle and PF_EXITING should be
> faulting.
Isn't task_numa_group() fully preemptible?
It seems cpu_rq(cpu)->curr is not always equal to p.
--
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