Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:55:42 -0700 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/15] rcu: Avoid rcu_print_detail_task_stall_rnp() segfault |
| |
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 03:46:59PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:19:17AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:56:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > The rcu_print_detail_task_stall_rnp() function invokes > > > rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp() to verify that there are some preempted > > > RCU readers blocking the current grace period outside of the protection > > > of the rcu_node structure's ->lock. This means that the last blocked > > > reader might exit its RCU read-side critical section and remove itself > > > from the ->blkd_tasks list before the ->lock is acquired, resulting in > > > a segmentation fault when the subsequent code attempts to dereference > > > the now-NULL gp_tasks pointer. > > > > > > This commit therefore moves the test under the lock. This will not > > > have measurable effect on lock contention because this code is invoked > > > only when printing RCU CPU stall warnings, in other words, in the common > > > case, never. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 6 ++++-- > > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h > > > index 139a803..c02dc1d 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h > > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h > > > @@ -422,9 +422,11 @@ static void rcu_print_detail_task_stall_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp) > > > unsigned long flags; > > > struct task_struct *t; > > > > > > - if (!rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) > > > - return; > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags); > > > + if (!rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) { > > > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); > > > + return; > > > + } > > > t = list_entry(rnp->gp_tasks, > > > struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry); > > > list_for_each_entry_continue(t, &rnp->blkd_tasks, rcu_node_entry) > > > > Given the small number of lines of code inside the critical section > > here, I think this would look clearer without the early return and > > duplicate lock release: > > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags); > > if (rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) { > > ... > > } > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); > > You might well be right, but doing that gets me another line longer > than 80 characters.
Even with that line broken in an appropriate place, the result still seems clearer.
> Hey, I have an excuse -- I actually spent a significant fraction of > my career using punched cards. ;-)
:)
- Josh Triplett
| |