Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:44:56 -0400 | Subject | Re: INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage - include/linux/cgroup.h:492 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! | From | Eric Paris <> |
| |
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 08:26:53PM -0500, Miles Lane wrote: >> [ 0.000000] Memory: 4004344k/5242880k available (5147k kernel code, >> 1084452k absent, 154084k reserved, 5943k data, 520k init) >> [ 0.000000] SLUB: Genslabs=13, HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, >> CPUs=2, Nodes=1 >> [ 0.000000] >> [ 0.000000] =================================================== >> [ 0.000000] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] >> [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------------- >> [ 0.000000] include/linux/cgroup.h:492 invoked >> rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > > Hello, Miles, > > This one is a false positive that is addressed by a set of boot-time > fixes that have recently gone into mainline, this series of commits: > > c598a070..71da8132 > > Thanx, Paul
I know you indicated this was fixed in mainline and I see that set of commits objects, but I'm seeing the below spew from linux-next today.
tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git tag: next-20100412 commit: bbeecf185fe464ccd7ee97ce6d3646ad686995b4
[ 0.035602] =================================================== [ 0.036003] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] [ 0.037006] --------------------------------------------------- [ 0.038004] include/linux/cgroup.h:533 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! [ 0.039003] [ 0.039004] other info that might help us debug this: [ 0.039004] [ 0.040003] [ 0.040004] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 [ 0.041004] no locks held by swapper/0. [ 0.042003] [ 0.042004] stack backtrace: [ 0.043005] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.34-rc3-next-20100412+ #65 [ 0.044003] Call Trace: [ 0.045015] [<ffffffff8108584f>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xaf/0xc0 [ 0.046010] [<ffffffff81044812>] set_task_cpu+0x2d2/0x370 [ 0.047009] [<ffffffff814dfef5>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x65/0x80 [ 0.048006] [<ffffffff81087aa0>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x120/0x1a0 [ 0.049006] [<ffffffff81087b2d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 [ 0.050006] [<ffffffff814dfed9>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x49/0x80 [ 0.051005] [<ffffffff8104a7a6>] ? task_fork_fair+0xc6/0x390 [ 0.052005] [<ffffffff810497b4>] sched_fork+0x74/0x170 [ 0.053006] [<ffffffff81054a3f>] copy_process+0x62f/0x11e0 [ 0.054006] [<ffffffff810882bd>] ? validate_chain+0x4fd/0x1360 [ 0.055005] [<ffffffff810556ae>] do_fork+0xbe/0x3e0 [ 0.056008] [<ffffffff81012519>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10 [ 0.057008] [<ffffffff81077485>] ? sched_clock_local+0x15/0x80 [ 0.058005] [<ffffffff810775ab>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xbb/0xf0 [ 0.059005] [<ffffffff81076415>] ? up+0x35/0x50 [ 0.060005] [<ffffffff81083623>] ? get_lock_stats+0x23/0x70 [ 0.061005] [<ffffffff8108367e>] ? put_lock_stats+0xe/0x30 [ 0.062011] [<ffffffff81aa6e20>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x2e0 [ 0.063007] [<ffffffff810136dd>] kernel_thread+0x8d/0xa0 [ 0.064007] [<ffffffff81aa6e20>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x2e0 [ 0.065009] [<ffffffff8100bc20>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10 [ 0.066006] [<ffffffff81aa6140>] ? early_idt_handler+0x0/0x71 [ 0.067006] [<ffffffff814c5cf1>] rest_init+0x21/0x110 [ 0.068006] [<ffffffff81aa6d3f>] start_kernel+0x3af/0x490 [ 0.069006] [<ffffffff81aa629c>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x7c/0xd0 [ 0.070006] [<ffffffff81aa6000>] ? early_idt_handlers+0x0/0x140 [ 0.071006] [<ffffffff81aa63e8>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xf8/0x130 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |