On 9/21/2016 5:42 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:

On (09/21/16 10:23), Santosh Shilimkar wrote:


Am assuming one of the driver in your test is using the DECLARE_TASKLET
to init the tasklet and killed by tasklet_kill() which leaves that
tasklet to be still scheduled by tasklet action.

yes, vt does something like this (kbd_bh).

Can you please try below patch and see if you still see the issue ?
Attaching the same, just in case mailer eat the tabs.

hm, didn't completely fix it. the vt is now happy, unlike usbnet.
Good that vt works now.

and the usbnet case is rather alarming.

looking at usbnet_probe()

usbnet_probe (struct usb_interface *udev, const struct usb_device_id *prod)
        skb_queue_head_init (&dev->done);
        dev->bh.func = usbnet_bh;
        dev->bh.data = (unsigned long) dev;
        INIT_WORK (&dev->kevent, usbnet_deferred_kevent);

first, sometimes tasklet initialisation is performed directly, not via

second, that 't->count == 0' eq 'tasklet_init()' is assumed to be sort of
a contract. so a simple kzalloc() works fine, and the patch breaks it.

Thats really bad that tasklet code is letting users call tasklet_schedule() even without any tasklet_init or DECLARE_TASKLET.

a simple grep in drivers/net/

_next$ git grep tasklet_sched drivers/net/ | awk '{print $1}' | uniq | wc -l

_next$ git grep tasklet_init drivers/net/ | awk '{print $1}' | uniq | wc -l

and I don't know how many call-sites outside of drivers/net/ do something
like this.

There are more :-(. Thanks for helping out Sergey.

# git grep tasklet_sched . | awk '{print $1}' | uniq | wc -l
# git grep tasklet_init . | awk '{print $1}' | uniq | wc -l

I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore.
Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly
tweaking 'tasklet_struct' fields and calling other APIs. Hunting them
and fixing them probably would be an exercise and also those changes
needs those changed drivers to be tested.

What do you suggest ? At least this patch needs to be dropped as of now
till we can have complete coverage for those bad users.


Reply via email to