Re: [patch 0/9] Fix various __task_cred related invalid RCUassumptions

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:39:06PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > While auditing the read_lock(&tasklist_lock) sites for a possible
> > conversion to rcu-read_lock() I stumbled over an unprotected user of
> > __task_cred in kernel/sys.c
> 
> I'm sure last time I looked, spinlock primitives implied RCU read locks.
> Maybe I was mistaken or maybe it's changed.  Whatever, good catch, Thomas!

It did indeed change with the split of the old synchronize_kernel()
primitive into the synchronize_rcu() and synchronize_sched() primitives
in 2.6.12 -- after this point, synchronize_rcu() was only guaranteed
to respect "real" rcu_read_lock()-base critical sections.  But actual
failures would not show up until PREEMPT_RCU was introduced into 2.6.25.

The -rt effort rooted out a bunch of these sorts of problems, but we
clearly missed a few.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/