On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 05:43:20PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 02:31:19PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 03:01:57PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > Make use of RCU's debug_objects debugging support
> > > (CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD) similar to call_rcu() and other flavors.
> >
> > Other flavors? Ah, call_srcu(), rcu_barrier(), and srcu_barrier(),
> > right?
>
> Yes.
>
> > > We queue the object during the kfree_rcu() call and dequeue it during
> > > reclaim.
> > >
> > > Tested that enabling CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD successfully detects
> > > double kfree_rcu() calls.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <j...@joelfernandes.org>
> >
> > The code looks good!
>
> thanks, does that mean you'll ack/apply it? :-P
Is it independent of 1/5 and 2/5?
Thanx, Paul
> - Joel
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > index 9b9ae4db1c2d..64568f12641d 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -2757,6 +2757,7 @@ static void kfree_rcu_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > for (; head; head = next) {
> > > next = head->next;
> > > /* Could be possible to optimize with kfree_bulk in future */
> > > + debug_rcu_head_unqueue(head);
> > > __rcu_reclaim(rcu_state.name, head);
> > > cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> > > }
> > > @@ -2868,6 +2869,13 @@ void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
> > > rcu_callback_t func)
> > > if (rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING)
> > > return kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(head, func);
> > >
> > > + if (debug_rcu_head_queue(head)) {
> > > + /* Probable double kfree_rcu() */
> > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "kfree_call_rcu(): Double-freed call. rcu_head
> > > %p\n",
> > > + head);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > head->func = func;
> > >
> > > local_irq_save(flags); /* For safely calling this_cpu_ptr(). */
> > > --
> > > 2.23.0.187.g17f5b7556c-goog
> > >
