On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 13:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 10:08 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote: > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015398us : enqueue_task_fair <-enqueue_task > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015398us : print_runqueue <-enqueue_task_fair > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015399us : __print_runqueue: cfs_rq: c2407c34, nr: 3, load: 3072 > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015400us : __print_runqueue: curr: f6a8de5c, comm: systemd-cgroups/1251, load: 1024 > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015401us : __print_runqueue: se: f69e6300, load: 1024, > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015401us : __print_runqueue: cfs_rq: f69e6540, nr: 2, load: 2048 > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015402us : __print_runqueue: curr: (null) > > > systemd--1251 0d..5. 2015402us : __print_runqueue: se: f69e65a0, load: 4137574976, > > > > the load == f69e65a0 == address of se, odd > > This appears to be consistently true, I've also found that in between > these two prints, there is a free_sched_group() freeing that exact > entry. So post-print is a use-after-free artifact. > > What's interesting is that its freeing a cfs_rq struct with > nr_running=1, that should not be possible... > > /me goes stare at the whole cgroup task attach vs cgroup destruction > muck. systemd-1 0d..1. 2070793us : sched_destroy_group: se: f69e43c0, load: 1024 systemd-1 0d..1. 2070794us : sched_destroy_group: cfs_rq: f69e4720, nr: 1, load: 1024 systemd-1 0d..1. 2070794us : __print_runqueue: cfs_rq: f69e4720, nr: 1, load: 1024 systemd-1 0d..1. 2070795us : __print_runqueue: curr: (null) systemd-1 0d..1. 2070796us : __print_runqueue: se: f6a8eb4c, comm: systemd-tmpfile/1243, load: 1024 systemd-1 0d..1. 2070796us : _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore <-sched_destroy_group So somehow it manages to destroy a group with a task attached. -- 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
