Re: lots of suspicious RCU traces

[Frederic Weisbecker]

First of all, thanks a lot for your report.

2012/10/24 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On (10/24/12 20:06), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> >
>> > small question,
>> >
>> > ptrace_notify() and forward calls are able to both indirectly and directly call schedule(),
>> > /* direct call from ptrace_stop()*/,
>> > should, in this case, rcu_user_enter() be called before tracehook_report_syscall_exit(regs, step)
>> > and ptrace chain?
>>
>> Well, I don't really understand this magic... but why?
>>
>
> My understanding is (I may be wrong) that we can schedule() from ptrace chain to
> some arbitrary task, which will continue its execution from the point where RCU assumes
> CPU as not idle, while CPU in fact still in idle state -- no one said rcu_idle_exit()
> (or similar) prior to schedule() call.

Yeah but when we are in syscall_trace_leave(), the CPU shouldn't be in
RCU idle mode. That's where the bug is. How do you manage to trigger
this bug?

>
> if so, does the same apply to in_user?
--
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/