From: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, brauner@kernel.org, surenb@google.com,
michael.christie@oracle.com, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
mjguzik@gmail.com, npiggin@gmail.com, shakeelb@google.com,
peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Fixing directly deferencing a __rcu pointer warning
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 02:13:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93115738-6919-4855-81b7-eb9b2fc60137@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231028081915-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On 10/28/23 17:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 03:52:47PM +0530, Abhinav Singh wrote:
>> This patch fixes the warning about directly dereferencing a pointer
>> tagged with __rcu annotation.
>>
>> Dereferencing the pointers tagged with __rcu directly should
>> always be avoided according to the docs. There is a rcu helper
>> function rcu_dereference(...) to use when dereferencing a __rcu
>> pointer. This function returns the non __rcu tagged pointer which
>> can be dereferenced just like a normal pointer.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> v1 -> v2 : added rcu_dereference(...) at line 2694
>> v2 -> v3 : added rcu_dereference(...) at line 2695
>>
>> kernel/fork.c | 8 ++++----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>> index 10917c3e1f03..e78649974669 100644
>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>> @@ -2369,7 +2369,7 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>>
>> retval = -EAGAIN;
>> if (is_rlimit_overlimit(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
>> - if (p->real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
>> + if (rcu_dereference(p->real_cred)->user != INIT_USER &&
>> !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> goto bad_fork_cleanup_count;
>> }
>> @@ -2690,9 +2690,9 @@ __latent_entropy struct task_struct *copy_process(
>> * tasklist_lock with adding child to the process tree
>> * for propagate_has_child_subreaper optimization.
>> */
>> - p->signal->has_child_subreaper = p->real_parent->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
>> - p->real_parent->signal->is_child_subreaper;
>> - list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &p->real_parent->children);
>> + p->signal->has_child_subreaper = rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->signal->has_child_subreaper ||
>> + rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->signal->is_child_subreaper;
>> + list_add_tail(&p->sibling, &rcu_dereference(p->real_parent)->children);
>> list_add_tail_rcu(&p->tasks, &init_task.tasks);
>> attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_TGID);
>> attach_pid(p, PIDTYPE_PGID);
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>
>
> You seem to just ignore review comments. NAK. I'm not going to review this anymore.
>
>
I m really sorry for ignorance and careless behaviour. This is
completely my fault, a maintainer has to do a lot of work and he cant
correct me all the times. On my defense I will only say that I was
really confused about a thing, instead of asking you question, I thought
of sending in another patch with some more information is a better
choice then a clearing my confusion by sending in a extra mail. You were
very concise and clear about your comments but MY stupidity was on
another level today. I m sorry for ignorant behaviour. And also thanks
and appreciate a lot for reviewing this patch till now to all the
maintainers.
Not sure if this patch will be reviewed again or not, but I think I
should answer the queries.
The last patch I sent, I tested with `lockdep` on (I hope "test with
`lockdep on`" means booting the kernel with lockdep enabled),
with these config options `CONFIG_PROVE_RCU` and `CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING`
enabled and it booted just fine. To confirm if lockdep was really
enabled I found these paths inside the qemu virtual envirnoment
/proc/lockdep
/proc/lockdep_chains
/proc/lockdep_stat
/proc/locks
/proc/lock_stats
I tested the above kernel using qemu with this command
qemu-system-x86_64 \
-m 2G \
-smp 2 \
-kernel /home/abhinav/linux_work/linux/arch/x86/boot/bzImage \
-append "console=ttyS0 root=/dev/sda earlyprintk=serial net.ifnames=0" \
-drive file=/home/abhinav/linux_work/boot_images/bullseye.img,format=raw \
-net user,host=10.0.2.10,hostfwd=tcp:127.0.0.1:10021-:22 \
-net nic,model=e1000 \
-enable-kvm \
-nographic \
-pidfile vm.pid \
2>&1 | tee vm.log
I did not get warning `the run-time "suspicious rcu_dereference_check()
usage"` as mentioned by Oleg Nesterov, which mean rcu_dereference(...)
it called inside of rcu read side critical sections.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-28 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-25 22:28 [PATCH] Fixing warning of directly dereferencing __rcu tagged Abhinav Singh
2023-10-25 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2023-10-25 23:27 ` Abhinav Singh
2023-10-25 23:50 ` Andrew Morton
2023-10-26 12:16 ` [PATCH v2] Fixing directly deferencing a __rcu pointer warning Abhinav Singh
2023-10-26 13:14 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-10-26 14:06 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-10-26 14:51 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-10-26 15:07 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-10-26 15:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-10-26 15:37 ` Abhinav Singh
2023-10-26 15:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-10-27 6:37 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhinav Singh
2023-10-27 6:41 ` Abhinav Singh
2023-10-27 7:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-10-27 6:50 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-10-26 12:18 ` [PATCH] Fixing warning of directly dereferencing __rcu tagged Abhinav Singh
2023-10-26 12:27 ` [PATCH] Fixing directly deferencing a __rcu pointer warning Abhinav Singh
2023-10-26 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-27 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2023-10-28 10:22 ` [PATCH v3] " Abhinav Singh
2023-10-28 10:31 ` Abhinav Singh
2023-10-28 12:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-10-28 20:43 ` Abhinav Singh [this message]
2023-10-28 20:46 ` Abhinav Singh
2023-11-03 6:30 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-12 19:30 ` [PATCH v4] " Abhinav Singh
2023-11-12 19:56 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2023-11-12 19:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-12 20:18 ` Abhinav Singh
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=93115738-6919-4855-81b7-eb9b2fc60137@gmail.com \
--to=singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=michael.christie@oracle.com \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®