[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c82a148-3f10-66f4-a7d7-cace557ff038@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:34:52 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mpe@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@...il.com, hbabu@...ibm.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 22/22] selftests/vm: Fix deadlock in protection_keys.c
On 02/21/2018 05:55 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> The sig_chld() handler calls dprintf2() taking care of setting
> dprint_in_signal so that sigsafe_printf() won't call printf().
> Unfortunately, this precaution is is negated by dprintf_level(), which
> has a call to fflush().
>
> This function acquires a lock, which means that if the signal interrupts an
> ongoing fflush() the process will deadlock. At least on powerpc this is
> easy to trigger, resulting in the following backtrace when attaching to the
> frozen process:
Ugh, yeah, I've run into this too.
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists