mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:34:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100618193403.GA17314@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100618190251.GA17297@redhat.com>

(add cc's)

Hmm. Once I sent this patch, I suddenly realized with horror that
while_each_thread() is NOT safe under rcu_read_lock(). Both
do_each_thread/while_each_thread or do/while_each_thread() can
race with exec().

Yes, it is safe to do next_thread() or next_task(). But:

	#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
		while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g)

suppose that t is not the group leader, and it does de_thread() and then
release_task(g). After that next_thread(t) returns t, not g, and the loop
will never stop.

I _really_ hope I missed something, will recheck tomorrow with the fresh
head. Still I'd like to share my concerns...

If I am right, probably we can fix this, something like

	#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
		while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g && pid_alive(g))

[we can't do while (!thread_group_leadr(t = next_thread(t)))].
but this needs barrires, and we should validate the callers anyway.

Or, perhaps,

	#define XXX(t)	({
		struct task_struct *__prev = t;
		t = next_thread(t);
		t != g && t != __prev;
	})

	#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
		while (XXX(t))

Please tell me I am wrong!

Oleg.

On 06/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() introduced by
> "softlockup: check all tasks in hung_task" commit ce9dbe24 looks
> absolutely wrong.
>
> 	- rcu_lock_break() does put_task_struct(). If the task has exited
> 	  it is not safe to even read its ->state, nothing protects this
> 	  task_struct.
>
> 	- The TASK_DEAD checks are wrong too. Contrary to the comment, we
> 	  can't use it to check if the task was unhashed. It can be unhashed
> 	  without TASK_DEAD, or it can be valid with TASK_DEAD.
>
> 	  For example, an autoreaping task can do release_task(current)
> 	  long before it sets TASK_DEAD in do_exit().
>
> 	  Or, a zombie task can have ->state == TASK_DEAD but release_task()
> 	  was not called, and in this case we must not break the loop.
>
> Change this code to check pid_alive() instead, and do this before we
> drop the reference to the task_struct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> ---
>
>  kernel/hung_task.c |   11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- 35-rc2/kernel/hung_task.c~CHT_FIX_RCU_LOCK_BREAK	2009-12-18 19:05:38.000000000 +0100
> +++ 35-rc2/kernel/hung_task.c	2010-06-18 20:06:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -113,15 +113,20 @@ static void check_hung_task(struct task_
>   * For preemptible RCU it is sufficient to call rcu_read_unlock in order
>   * exit the grace period. For classic RCU, a reschedule is required.
>   */
> -static void rcu_lock_break(struct task_struct *g, struct task_struct *t)
> +static bool rcu_lock_break(struct task_struct *g, struct task_struct *t)
>  {
> +	bool can_cont;
> +
>  	get_task_struct(g);
>  	get_task_struct(t);
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  	cond_resched();
>  	rcu_read_lock();
> +	can_cont = pid_alive(g) && pid_alive(t);
>  	put_task_struct(t);
>  	put_task_struct(g);
> +
> +	return can_cont;
>  }
>
>  /*
> @@ -148,9 +153,7 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_t
>  			goto unlock;
>  		if (!--batch_count) {
>  			batch_count = HUNG_TASK_BATCHING;
> -			rcu_lock_break(g, t);
> -			/* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */
> -			if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD)
> +			if (!rcu_lock_break(g, t))
>  				goto unlock;
>  		}
>  		/* use "==" to skip the TASK_KILLABLE tasks waiting on NFS */


  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-18 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-18 19:02 [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 19:34 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2010-06-18 21:08   ` while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken? Roland McGrath
2010-06-18 22:37     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 22:33   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 17:09     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 17:44       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 18:00         ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 19:02         ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-21 20:06           ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-21 21:19             ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-22 14:34               ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-07-08 23:59             ` Roland McGrath
2010-07-09  0:41               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-07-09  1:01                 ` Roland McGrath
2010-07-09 16:18                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 20:51       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-21 21:22         ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-21 21:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-22 21:23         ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-22 22:12           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-23 15:24             ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-24 18:07               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-24 18:50                 ` Chris Friesen
2010-06-24 22:00                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-25  0:08                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-06-25  3:42                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-25 10:08                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-07-09  0:52                       ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-24 21:14                 ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-25  3:37                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-07-09  0:41                     ` Roland McGrath
2010-06-24 21:57                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-25  3:41                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-25  9:55                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-28 23:43                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-29 13:05                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-29 15:34                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-29 17:54                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-19  5:00   ` Mandeep Baines
2010-06-19  5:35     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-19 15:44       ` Mandeep Baines
2010-06-19 19:19     ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-06-18 20:11 ` [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() logic Frederic Weisbecker
2010-06-18 20:38 ` Mandeep Singh Baines

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100618193403.GA17314@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jmarchan@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=msb@google.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=roland@redhat.com \
    --cc=stable@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome