Re: [PATCH] trace: disable preemption before taking raw spinlocks

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 26 May 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 17:28 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > s390 code uses smp_processor_id() in __raw_spin_lock() code which
> > > reveals that a (raw) spinlock is taken without preemption disabled.
> > > This can potentially deadlock.
> > > 
> > > To fix this explicitly disable and enable preemption.
> > > 
> > > BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: cat/2278
> > > caller is trace_find_cmdline+0x40/0xfc
> > > CPU: 0 Not tainted 2.6.30-rc7-dirty #39
> > > Process cat (pid: 2278, task: 000000003faedb68, ksp: 000000003b33b988)
> > > 000000003b33b988 000000003b33bae0 0000000000000002 0000000000000000 
> > >        000000003b33bb80 000000003b33baf8 000000003b33baf8 00000000000175d6 
> > >        0000000000000001 000000003b33b988 000000003f9b0000 000000000000000b 
> > >        000000000000000c 000000003b33bb40 000000003b33bae0 0000000000000000 
> > >        0000000000000000 00000000000175d6 000000003b33bae0 000000003b33bb28 
> > > Call Trace:
> > > ([<00000000000174b2>] show_trace+0x112/0x170)
> > >  [<0000000000017582>] show_stack+0x72/0x100
> > >  [<0000000000441538>] dump_stack+0xc8/0xd8
> > >  [<000000000025c350>] debug_smp_processor_id+0x114/0x130
> > >  [<00000000000bf0e4>] trace_find_cmdline+0x40/0xfc
> > >  [<00000000000c35d4>] trace_print_context+0x58/0xac
> > >  [<00000000000bb676>] print_trace_line+0x416/0x470
> > >  [<00000000000bc8fe>] s_show+0x4e/0x428
> > >  [<000000000013834e>] seq_read+0x36a/0x5d4
> > >  [<0000000000112a78>] vfs_read+0xc8/0x174
> > >  [<0000000000112c58>] SyS_read+0x74/0xc4
> > >  [<000000000002c7ae>] sysc_noemu+0x10/0x16
> > >  [<000002000012436c>] 0x2000012436c
> > > 1 lock held by cat/2278:
> > >  #0:  (&p->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<0000000000138056>] seq_read+0x72/0x5d4
> > 
> > Shouldn't that be preempt_disable_notrace() and co to avoid tracer
> > recursion?
> 
> Doesn't need to be. That function is done in the output (slow path), not 
> during an actual trace.

Oh, and I should also include:

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/