linux-kernel - Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with virtio-blk (also 4.12 stable)

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

Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:29:24 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stefan Haberland <sth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with
        virtio-blk (also 4.12 stable)

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 01:25:11PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
t > commit 11b2025c3326f7096ceb588c3117c7883850c068    -> bad
>     blk-mq: create a blk_mq_ctx for each possible CPU
> does not boot on DASD and 
> commit 9c6ae239e01ae9a9f8657f05c55c4372e9fc8bcc    -> good
>    genirq/affinity: assign vectors to all possible CPUs
> does boot with DASD disks.
> 
> Also adding Stefan Haberland if he has an idea why this fails on DASD and adding Martin (for the
> s390 irq handling code).

That is interesting as it really isn't related to interrupts at all,
it just ensures that possible CPUs are set in ->cpumask.

I guess we'd really want:

e005655c389e3d25bf3e43f71611ec12f3012de0
"blk-mq: only select online CPUs in blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu"

before this commit, but it seems like the whole stack didn't work for
your either.

I wonder if there is some weird thing about nr_cpu_ids in s390?