lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] break out page allocation warning code
Date
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 13:25 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > It shouldn't be a follow-on patch since you're introducing a new feature
> > here (vmalloc allocation failure warnings) and what I'm identifying is a
> > race in the access to current->comm. A bug fix for a race should always
> > preceed a feature that touches the same code.
>
> So, what's the race here? kmemleak.c says?
>
> /*
> * There is a small chance of a race with set_task_comm(),
> * however using get_task_comm() here may cause locking
> * dependency issues with current->alloc_lock. In the worst
> * case, the command line is not correct.
> */
> strncpy(object->comm, current->comm, sizeof(object->comm));
>
> We're trying to make sure we don't print out a partially updated
> tsk->comm? Or, is there a bigger issue here like potential oopses or
> kernel information leaks.
>
> 1. We require that no memory allocator ever holds the task lock for the
> current task, and we audit all the existing GFP_ATOMIC users in the
> kernel to ensure they're not doing it now. In the case of a problem,
> we end up with a hung kernel while trying to get a message out to the
> console.
> 2. We remove current->comm from the printk(), and deal with the
> information loss.
> 3. We live with corrupted output, like the other ~400 in-kernel users of
> ->comm do. (I'm assuming that very few of them hold the task lock).
> In the case of a race, we get junk on the console, but an otherwise
> fine bug report (the way it is now).
> 4. We come up with some way to print out current->comm, without holding
> any task locks. We could do this by copying it somewhere safe on
> each context switch. Could probably also do it with RCU.
>
> There's also a very, very odd message in fs/exec.c:
>
> /*
> * Threads may access current->comm without holding
> * the task lock, so write the string carefully.
> * Readers without a lock may see incomplete new
> * names but are safe from non-terminating string reads.
> */

The rule is,

1) writing comm
need task_lock
2) read _another_ thread's comm
need task_lock
3) read own comm
no need task_lock

That's the reason why oom-kill.c need task_lock and other a lot of place don't need
task_lock. I agree this is very strange. it's only historical reason.

The comment of set_task_comm() explained a race against (3).

Thanks.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-19 02:47    [W:0.237 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site