Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:53:28 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, migration/0/9 |
| |
On 02/13, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Nicholas, sorry, I sent the patch but forgot to CC you. > > See https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/12/587 > > > > And please note that "completion" was specially designed to guarantee > > that complete() can't play with this memory after wait_for_completion/etc > > returns. > > > > hmmm.... I guess that "falling out of context" can happen in a number of cases > with completion - any of the timeout/interruptible variants e.g: > > void xxx(void) > { > struct completion c; > > init_completion(&c); > > expose_this_completion(&c); > > wait_for_completion_timeout(&c,A_FEW_JIFFIES); > } > > and if the other side did not call complete() within A_FEW_JIFFIES then > it would result in the same failure - I don't think the API can prevent > this type of bug.
Yes sure, but in this case the user of wait_for_completion_timeout() should blame itself, it is simply buggy.
> Tt has to be ensured by additional locking
Yes, but
> drivers/misc/tifm_7xx1.c:tifm_7xx1_resume() resolve this issue by resetting > the completion to NULL and testing for !NULL before calling complete() > with appropriate locking protection access.
I don't understand this code, I can be easily wrong. but at first glance it doesn't need completion at all. Exactly because it relies on the additional fm->lock. ->finish_me could be "task_struct *", the tifm_7xx1_resume() could simply do schedule_timeout(), tifm_7xx1_isr() could do wake_up_process(). Nevermind, this is off-topic and most probably I misread this code.
> Never the less of course the proposed change in completion_done() was a bug - > many thanks for catching that so quickly !
OK, perhaps you can ack the fix I sent?
Oleg.
| |