Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jarek Poplawski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 08:24:58AM +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:

Jarek Poplawski wrote:

On 18-09-2007 16:55, Nadia Derbey wrote:
...


Well, reviewing the code I found another place where the rcu_read_unlock() was missing. I'm so sorry for the inconvenience. It's true that I should have tested with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y :-(
Now, the ltp tests pass even with this option set...

In attachment you'll find a patch thhat
1) adds the missing rcu_read_unlock()
2) replaces Andrew's fix with a new one: the rcu_read_lock() is now taken in ipc_lock() / ipc_lock_by_ptr() and released in ipc_unlock(), exactly as it was done in the ref code.


BTW, probably I miss something, but I wonder, how this RCU is working
here. E.g. in msg.c do_msgsnd() there is:

msq = msg_lock_check(ns, msqid);
...

msg_unlock(msq);
schedule();

ipc_lock_by_ptr(&msq->q_perm);

Since msq_lock_check() gets msq with ipc_lock_check() under
rcu_read_lock(), and then goes msg_unlock(msq) (i.e. ipc_unlock())
with rcu_read_unlock(), is it valid to use this with
ipc_lock_by_ptr() yet?

Before Calling msg_unlock() they call ipc_rcu_getref() that increments a refcount in the rcu header for the msg structure. This guarantees that the the structure won't be freed before they relock it. Once the structure is relocked by ipc_lock_by_ptr(), they do the symmetric operation i.e. ipc_rcu_putref().


Yes, I've found this later too - sorry for bothering. I was mislead
by the code like this:

struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_lock(struct ipc_ids *ids, int id)
{
        struct kern_ipc_perm *out;
        int lid = ipcid_to_idx(id);

        rcu_read_lock();
        out = idr_find(&ids->ipcs_idr, lid);
        if (out == NULL) {
                rcu_read_unlock();
                return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
        }

which seems to suggest "out" is an RCU protected pointer, so, I
thought these refcounts were for something else. But, after looking
at how it's used it turns out to be ~90% wrong: probably 9 out of 10
places use refcouning around this,

Actually, ipc_lock() is called most of the time without the ipc_ids.mutex held and without refcounting (maybe you didn't look for the msg_lock() sem_lock() and shm_lock() too).
So I think disabling preemption is needed, isn't it?

so, these rcu_read_locks() don't
work here at all. So, probably I miss something again, but IMHO,
these rcu_read_locks/unlocks could be removed here or in
ipc_lock_by_ptr() and it should be enough to use them directly, where
really needed, e.g., in msg.c do_msgrcv().


I have to check for the ipc_lock_by_ptr(): may be you're right!

Regards,
Nadia

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux