From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S935496Ab2JXSvX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:51:23 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65000 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S935244Ab2JXSvW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:51:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:52:30 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lots of suspicious RCU traces
Message-ID: <20121024185230.GB5025@redhat.com>
References: <20121017034918.GA13295@redhat.com> <20121024164235.GA2467@swordfish> <20121024180608.GA22840@redhat.com> <20121024182111.GA2340@swordfish>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121024182111.GA2340@swordfish>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> 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)

Oh, I bet I have much more chances to be wrong ;)

> that we can schedule() from ptrace chain to

I don't understand how ptrace chain differs from, say, audit_syscall_exit().
There is nothing special in ptrace_stop() in this respect.

> 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()

confused... of course it would be wrong if syscall_trace_leave() is
called when CPU is considered idle,

> if so, does the same apply to in_user?

Not sure we understand each other. But I believe that ->in_user should be
already false when syscall_trace_leave() is called.

Oleg.