[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160420122552.GY3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:25:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: xlpang@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] sched/deadline/rtmutex: Fix unprotected PI access
in enqueue_task_dl()
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:19:12AM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 2016/04/15 at 09:58, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> > On 2016/04/14 at 23:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:06PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> >>> We access @pi_task's data without any lock in enqueue_task_dl(), though
> >>> checked "dl_prio(pi_task->normal_prio)" condition, that's not enough.
> >> The proper fix is to ensure that pi_task is guaranteed to be blocked.
> > Even if pi_task was blocked, its parameters are still allowed to be changed,
> > so we have to do that. Did I miss something?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Xunlei
>
> Fortunately, I just reproduced through an overnight test, so it really happened in reality as I thought.
But what happens? How is it changed when it is blocked?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists