mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.





  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®