Re: 2.6.35-rc2-git1 - include/linux/cgroup.h:534 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Jun 09 2010 - 13:57:40 EST
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 13:00 -0400, Miles Lane wrote:
> ACPI: Core revision 20100428
> [ 0.061088]
> [ 0.061090] ===================================================
> [ 0.062009] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> [ 0.062138] ---------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.062268] kernel/sched.c:616 invoked rcu_dereference_check()
> without protection!
> [ 0.062470]
> [ 0.062471] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 0.062472]
> [ 0.062835]
> [ 0.062836] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> [ 0.063009] no locks held by swapper/0.
> [ 0.063134]
> [ 0.063135] stack backtrace:
> [ 0.063378] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.35-rc2-git3 #3
> [ 0.063507] Call Trace:
> [ 0.063638] [<ffffffff81072205>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa5
> [ 0.063773] [<ffffffff810379f9>] task_group+0x7b/0x8a
> [ 0.064012] [<ffffffff81037a1d>] set_task_rq+0x15/0x6e
> [ 0.064143] [<ffffffff8103e50f>] set_task_cpu+0xa9/0xba
> [ 0.064274] [<ffffffff81042dbb>] sched_fork+0x10a/0x1b3
> [ 0.064405] [<ffffffff810446f9>] copy_process+0x617/0x10e6
> [ 0.064537] [<ffffffff8104533d>] do_fork+0x175/0x39b
> [ 0.064670] [<ffffffff8106589b>] ? up+0xf/0x39
> [ 0.064800] [<ffffffff8106589b>] ? up+0xf/0x39
> [ 0.065013] [<ffffffff811dbf73>] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x79/0x13e
> [ 0.065148] [<ffffffff81011526>] kernel_thread+0x70/0x72
> [ 0.065279] [<ffffffff816cc5e4>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1ce
> [ 0.065411] [<ffffffff8100aba0>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> [ 0.065545] [<ffffffff81096bea>] ? rcu_scheduler_starting+0x2a/0x4c
> [ 0.065679] [<ffffffff813a8a4d>] rest_init+0x21/0xde
> [ 0.065810] [<ffffffff816cce28>] start_kernel+0x448/0x453
> [ 0.066013] [<ffffffff816cc2c8>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xb3/0xb7
> [ 0.066148] [<ffffffff816cc418>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x14c/0x15b
> [ 0.066499] Setting APIC routing to flat
Argh, moar funkeh stuff..
Either we do something like the below, or add something like (p->flags &
PF_STARTING) to the task_subsys_state_check(), opinions?
---
kernel/sched.c | 8 ++++++++
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 19b3c5d..bfd3128 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2564,7 +2564,15 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, int clone_flags)
if (p->sched_class->task_fork)
p->sched_class->task_fork(p);
+ /*
+ * We're not in the pid-hash yet so no cgroup attach races, and the
+ * cgroup is pinned by the parent running this.
+ *
+ * Silence PROVE_RCU.
+ */
+ rcu_read_lock();
set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
if (likely(sched_info_on()))
--
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/