[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+EVNz4ORkFSvTfP@linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 15:56:55 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling
context
On 2023-02-06 10:04:47 [-0300], Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
> locks. Therefore, it can't be called from an non-preemptible context.
>
> One practical example is splat inside inactive_task_timer(), which is
> called in a interrupt context:
Do you have more?
The inactive_task_timer() is marked as HRTIMER_MODE_REL_HARD which means
in runs in hardirq-context. The author of commit
850377a875a48 ("sched/deadline: Ensure inactive_timer runs in hardirq context")
should have been aware of that.
We have on workaround of that put_task() in sched-switch. I wasn't aware
of this shortcoming. So either we have more problems or potential
problems or this is the only finding so far.
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 9f7fe3541897..532dd2ceb6a3 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -857,6 +857,29 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
…
> +void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && (!preemptible() || !in_task()))
Is it safe to use the rcu member in any case? If so why not use it
unconditionally?
> + /*
> + * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> + * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> + * acquire sleeping locks.
> + *
> + * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
> + * to be called in process context.
> + */
> + call_rcu(&tsk->rcu, delayed_put_task_struct_rcu);
> + else
> + ___put_task_struct(tsk);
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct);
>
> void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists