From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fork: fix oops after fork failure
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:38:21 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5036405D.1060204@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120823143312.GA23636@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 08/23/2012 06:33 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-08-12 17:08:46, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> When we want to duplicate a new process, dup_task_struct() will undergo
>> a series of allocations. If alloc_thread_info_node() fails, we call
>> free_task_struct() and return.
>>
>> This seems right, but it is not. free_task_struct() will not only free
>> the task struct from the kmem_cache, but will also call
>> arch_release_task_struct(). The problem is that this function is
>> supposed to undo whatever arch-specific work done by
>> arch_dup_task_struct(), that is not yet called at this point. The
>> particular problem I ran accross was that in x86, we will arrive at
>> fpu_free() without having ever allocated it.
>>
>> This code is very ancient, and according to git, it is there since the
>> pre-git era. But forks don't fail that often, so that made it well
>> hidden.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
>> Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>> index 152d023..b397435 100644
>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static struct task_struct *dup_task_struct(struct task_struct *orig)
>>
>> ti = alloc_thread_info_node(tsk, node);
>> if (!ti) {
>> - free_task_struct(tsk);
>> + kmem_cache_free(task_struct_cachep, tsk);
>
> What about ia64 (or !CONFIG_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR in general) which
> doesn't allocate thread_info at all?
They would return something meaningful here anyway, otherwise this would
already error out and exit.
But you actually have a point. Not all architectures (all but ia64) will
allocathe the task struct from the slab... sigh...
Sorry, I will come up with something for this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-23 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-23 13:08 Glauber Costa
2012-08-23 14:33 ` Michal Hocko
2012-08-23 14:38 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2012-08-23 14:38 ` Michal Hocko
2012-08-23 14:45 ` Michal Hocko
2012-08-23 14:43 ` Glauber Costa
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=5036405D.1060204@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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