[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161024122210.GM3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:22:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Ni, BaoleX" <baolex.ni@...el.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:10:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> --- x/kernel/pid.c
> +++ x/kernel/pid.c
> @@ -526,8 +526,11 @@ pid_t __task_pid_nr_ns(struct task_struc
> if (!ns)
> ns = task_active_pid_ns(current);
> if (likely(pid_alive(task))) {
> - if (type != PIDTYPE_PID)
> + if (type != PIDTYPE_PID) {
> + if (type == PIDTYPE_TGID)
> + type = PIDTYPE_PID;
> task = task->group_leader;
> + }
Aah, that makes much more sense ;-)
> nr = pid_nr_ns(rcu_dereference(task->pids[type].pid), ns);
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
Still, I wonder if returning 0 is the right thing. 0 is a 'valid' PID
for the init/idle task.
And we still have the re-use issue for the TID, because when we get here
TID is already unhashed too afaict, it just doesn't explode because we
don't deref freed memory.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists