Re: [PATCH] kthreads: Fix startup synchronization boot crash

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Sep 01 2009 - 09:12:18 EST

On 09/01, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> In fact i dont see any proper serialization here: there appears to
> be a race between the initial task and the init task (which are not
> one and the same). The race is possibly timing dependent as well,
> hence the (in hindsight, false) dependency on the stackprotector
> commit.

Yes, this looks racy, and I think this was always racy.

> I think the bug was introduced
> via:
> cdd140b: kthreads: simplify the startup synchronization

Cough ;) No, I don't think this patch introduced this bug. With or without
this patch, kthread_create() assumes kthreadd_task != NULL, otherwise
wake_up_process(kthreadd_task) is obviously can crash.

> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(kthread_create_lock);
> static LIST_HEAD(kthread_create_list);
> +
> struct task_struct *kthreadd_task;
> +DECLARE_COMPLETION(kthreadd_task_init_done);
> struct kthread_create_info
> {
> @@ -129,6 +131,9 @@ struct task_struct *kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data),
> list_add_tail(&create.list, &kthread_create_list);
> spin_unlock(&kthread_create_lock);
> + if (unlikely(!kthreadd_task))
> + wait_for_completion(&kthreadd_task_init_done);
> +

Yes, this should work. But I _think_ we can make the better fix...

I'll try to make the patch soon. Afaics we don't need kthreadd_task_init_done.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at