Re: [PATCH] rcu_read_lock/unlock protect find_task_by_vpid call

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 15:55 +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Commit 4221a9918e38b7494cee341dda7b7b4bb8c04bde "Add RCU check for 
> find_task_by_vpid()" introduced rcu_lockdep_assert to find_task_by_pid_ns.
> Assertion failed in sys_ioprio_get. The patch is fixing assertion
> failure in ioprio_set as well. 
> 
>  ===================================================
>  [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
>  ---------------------------------------------------
>  kernel/pid.c:419 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
>  
>  rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
>  1 lock held by iotop/4254:
>  #0:  (tasklist_lock){.?.?..}, at: [<ffffffff811104b4>] sys_ioprio_get+0x22/0x2da
>  
>  stack backtrace:
>  Pid: 4254, comm: iotop Not tainted
>  Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff810656f2>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xaa/0xb2
>  [<ffffffff81053c67>] find_task_by_pid_ns+0x4f/0x68
>  [<ffffffff81053c9d>] find_task_by_vpid+0x1d/0x1f
>  [<ffffffff811104e2>] sys_ioprio_get+0x50/0x2da
>  [<ffffffff81002182>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>  
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ioprio.c b/fs/ioprio.c
> index 748cfb9..666343d 100644
> --- a/fs/ioprio.c
> +++ b/fs/ioprio.c
> @@ -113,8 +113,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioprio_set, int, which, int, who, int, ioprio)
>  		case IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS:
>  			if (!who)
>  				p = current;
> -			else
> +			else {
> +				rcu_read_lock();
>  				p = find_task_by_vpid(who);
> +				rcu_read_unlock();
> +			}
>  			if (p)
>  				ret = set_task_ioprio(p, ioprio);
>  			break;
> @@ -202,8 +205,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(ioprio_get, int, which, int, who)
>  		case IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS:
>  			if (!who)
>  				p = current;
> -			else
> +			else {
> +				rcu_read_lock();
>  				p = find_task_by_vpid(who);
> +				rcu_read_unlock();
> +			}
>  			if (p)
>  				ret = get_task_ioprio(p);
>  			break;

If you add the rcu_read_lock/unlock() sections, we would also need to
update the comment above accordingly.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH] ioprio: remove comment to not use RCU

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxx>
---
 fs/ioprio.c |    5 -----
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ioprio.c b/fs/ioprio.c
index 748cfb9..72d71de 100644
--- a/fs/ioprio.c
+++ b/fs/ioprio.c
@@ -103,11 +103,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(ioprio_set, int, which, int, who,
int, ioprio)
 	}
 
 	ret = -ESRCH;
-	/*
-	 * We want IOPRIO_WHO_PGRP/IOPRIO_WHO_USER to be "atomic",
-	 * so we can't use rcu_read_lock(). See re-copy of ->ioprio
-	 * in copy_process().
-	 */
 	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	switch (which) {
 		case IOPRIO_WHO_PROCESS:
-- 
1.7.1



--
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/