2010/6/29 shenghui <crosslonelyover@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2010/6/28 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> So if ->rb_leftmost is NULL, then the if (!left) check in
>> __pick_next_entity() would return null.
>>
>> As to the NULL deref in in pick_next_task_fair()->set_next_entity() that
>> should never happen because pick_next_task_fair() will bail
>> on !->nr_running.
>>
>> Furthermore, you've failed to mention what kernel version you're looking
>> at.
>>
>
> The kernel version is 2.6.35-rc3, and 2.6.34 has the same code.
>
> For nr->running, if current is the only process in the run queue, then
> nr->running would not be zero.
> 1784 if (!cfs_rq->nr_running)
> 1785 return NULL;
> pick_next_task_fair() could pass above check and run to following:
> 1787 do {
> 1788 se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq);
> 1789 set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> 1790 cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
> 1791 } while (cfs_rq);
>
> Then pick_next_entity will get NULL for current is the root rb_node.
> Then set_next_entity would fail on NULL deference.
>
Sorry, I misunderstood the code. I'll put forward one new patch to
avoid the NULL condition
--
Thanks and Best Regards,
shenghui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
