linux-kernel - Re: inconsistent lock state (2.6.34, XFS inode shrinker)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:51:11 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Pedro M. López <pmlopez@...timensaje.es>
Cc:	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: inconsistent lock state (2.6.34, XFS inode shrinker)

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:13:22PM +0200, Pedro M. López wrote:
> =================================
> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> 2.6.34 #1
> ---------------------------------
> inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
> kswapd0/227 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
>  (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock#2){++++?+}, at: [<ffffffff8112c11f>]
> xfs_ilock+0x27/0x79 {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
>   [<ffffffff810510f5>] mark_held_locks+0x52/0x70
>   [<ffffffff81051198>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x85/0x9f
>   [<ffffffff81073db2>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x7b/0x5b5
>   [<ffffffff8106f1e2>] grab_cache_page_write_begin+0x65/0xaa
>   [<ffffffff810bfaaa>] block_write_begin+0x38/0xcd
>   [<ffffffff81146f1f>] xfs_vm_write_begin+0x25/0x27
>   [<ffffffff8106e140>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x114/0x271
>   [<ffffffff8114aa31>] xfs_file_aio_write+0x4e1/0x70c
>   [<ffffffff8109d187>] do_sync_write+0xc6/0x103
>   [<ffffffff8109db5f>] vfs_write+0xad/0x172
>   [<ffffffff8109dcdd>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c
>   [<ffffffff81001f2b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> irq event stamp: 62175
> hardirqs last  enabled at (62175): [<ffffffff8126fb03>]
> _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3a/0x60 hardirqs last disabled at
> (62174): [<ffffffff8126f3a9>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x17/0x58 softirqs
> last  enabled at (61572): [<ffffffff8103398d>] __do_softirq+0x127/0x13e
> softirqs last disabled at (61543): [<ffffffff81002dcc>]
> call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 2 locks held by kswapd0/227:
>  #0:  (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff810797f0>]
> shrink_slab+0x38/0x144 #1:  (&xfs_mount_list_lock){++++.-}, at:
> [<ffffffff811503fc>] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0x35/0x128
> 
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 227, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.34 #1
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff81050b72>] print_usage_bug+0x1a4/0x1b5
>  [<ffffffff8100c995>] ? save_stack_trace+0x2a/0x47
>  [<ffffffff810516bc>] ? check_usage_forwards+0x0/0xcf
>  [<ffffffff81050e6d>] mark_lock+0x2ea/0x520
>  [<ffffffff81052b8a>] __lock_acquire+0x6c1/0x1607
>  [<ffffffff8116820b>] ? radix_tree_delete+0xd1/0x1d0
>  [<ffffffff81053b27>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x6d
>  [<ffffffff8112c11f>] ? xfs_ilock+0x27/0x79
>  [<ffffffff81046939>] down_write_nested+0x2a/0x4d
>  [<ffffffff8112c11f>] ? xfs_ilock+0x27/0x79
>  [<ffffffff8112c11f>] xfs_ilock+0x27/0x79
>  [<ffffffff8112c2eb>] xfs_ireclaim+0x93/0xb1
>  [<ffffffff8114f949>] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x1de/0x20a
>  [<ffffffff81150299>] xfs_inode_ag_walk+0x8b/0xe6
>  [<ffffffff8114f76b>] ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x0/0x20a
>  [<ffffffff81150374>] xfs_inode_ag_iterator+0x80/0xd3
>  [<ffffffff8114f76b>] ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x0/0x20a
>  [<ffffffff81150428>] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0x61/0x128
>  [<ffffffff8107988b>] shrink_slab+0xd3/0x144
>  [<ffffffff81079c61>] balance_pgdat+0x365/0x59b
>  [<ffffffff81077908>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x212
>  [<ffffffff8107a089>] kswapd+0x1f2/0x20f
>  [<ffffffff81042e89>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
>  [<ffffffff8126fb24>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x5b/0x60
>  [<ffffffff81079e97>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x20f
>  [<ffffffff81042ac7>] kthread+0x7a/0x82
>  [<ffffffff81002cd4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>  [<ffffffff8126ff40>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
>  [<ffffffff81042a4d>] ? kthread+0x0/0x82
>  [<ffffffff81002cd0>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10

It's a false positive introduced in 2.6.34 by the inode shrinker.
That's one of several different false positive traces in 2.6.34,
but I can't do anything about them because the shrinkers require
global scope. The patches to customise the shrinker contexts (which
avoids all of these warnings) will fix this....

You may as well not run lockdep on anything with an XFS filesystem,
as these false positives will occur as soon as memory reclaim
triggers and turn lockdep off.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/