Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754499Ab0KIU3P (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:29:15 -0500 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:60695 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751831Ab0KIU3G (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:29:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:29:00 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Greg Thelen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage - kernel/pid.c:419 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Message-ID: <20101109202900.GV4032@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20101107182028.GZ15561@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101108151509.GA3702@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101108151509.GA3702@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 42 On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 04:15:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/07, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:08:46AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote: > > > > > > ioprio_set() contains a comment warning against of usage of > > > rcu_read_lock() to avoid this warning: > > > /* > > > * 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(). > > > */ > > > > > > So I'm not sure what the best fix is. > > (please note that "we can't use rcu_read_lock()" actually meant > rcu_read_lock() is not _enough_) > > > I must defer to Oleg, who wrote the comment. But please see below. > > I added this comment to explain some oddities in copy_process(). > Nobody confirmed my understanding was correct ;) > > In any case, this comment doesn't look right today. This code was > changed by fd0928df98b9578be8a786ac0cb78a47a5e17a20 > "ioprio: move io priority from task_struct to io_context" after that, > tasklist can't help to make sys_ioprio_set(IOPRIO_WHO_PGRP) atomic. > > I think tasklist_lock can be removed now. > > And, as Paul pointed out, we need rcu_read_lock() anyway, it was > already added by Sergey. Thank you, Oleg! Greg, would you be willing to update your patch to remove the comment? (Perhaps tasklist_lock as well...) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/