netdev - Re: 2.6.35-rc2-git1 - include/linux/cgroup.h:534 invoked rcu_dereference

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100608001929.GF2387@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:19:29 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, nauman@...gle.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.35-rc2-git1 - include/linux/cgroup.h:534 invoked
 rcu_dereference_check() without protection!

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:14:25PM -0400, Miles Lane wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I just reproduced a warning I reported quite a while ago.  Is a patch
> for this in the pipeline?

I proposed a patch, thinking that it was a false positive.  Peter Zijlstra
pointed out that there was a real race, and proposed an alternative patch,
which may be found at http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/22/603.

Could you please test Peter's patch and let us know if it cures the problem?

							Thanx, Paul

> [    0.167267] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> [    0.167396] ---------------------------------------------------
> [    0.167526] include/linux/cgroup.h:534 invoked
> rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> [    0.167728]
> [    0.167729] other info that might help us debug this:
> [    0.167731]
> [    0.168092]
> [    0.168093] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> [    0.168337] no locks held by watchdog/0/5.
> [    0.168462]
> [    0.168463] stack backtrace:
> [    0.168704] Pid: 5, comm: watchdog/0 Not tainted 2.6.35-rc2-git1 #8
> [    0.168834] Call Trace:
> [    0.168965]  [<ffffffff81064e9c>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa5
> [    0.169100]  [<ffffffff8102c1ce>] task_subsys_state+0x59/0x70
> [    0.169232]  [<ffffffff8103189b>] __sched_setscheduler+0x19d/0x2f8
> [    0.169365]  [<ffffffff8102a5ef>] ? need_resched+0x1e/0x28
> [    0.169497]  [<ffffffff813c7d01>] ? schedule+0x586/0x619
> [    0.169628]  [<ffffffff81081c33>] ? watchdog+0x0/0x8c
> [    0.169758]  [<ffffffff81031a11>] sched_setscheduler+0xe/0x10
> [    0.169889]  [<ffffffff81081c5d>] watchdog+0x2a/0x8c
> [    0.170010]  [<ffffffff81081c33>] ? watchdog+0x0/0x8c
> [    0.170141]  [<ffffffff81054a82>] kthread+0x89/0x91
> [    0.170274]  [<ffffffff81003054>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [    0.170405]  [<ffffffff813ca480>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> [    0.170536]  [<ffffffff810549f9>] ? kthread+0x0/0x91
> [    0.170667]  [<ffffffff81003050>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> [    0.176751] lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html