linux-kernel - Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

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]

Message-ID: <20070307170955.GA4252@skl-net.de>
Date:	Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:09:55 +0100
From:	Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Subject: Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

On 20:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:22 +0100 Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 16:18, Andre Noll wrote:
> > 
> > > With 2.6.21-rc2 I am unable to reproduce this BUG message. However,
> > > writing to both raid systems at the same time via lvm still locks up
> > > the system within minutes.
> > 
> > Screenshot of the resulting kernel panic:
> > 
> > 	http://systemlinux.org/~maan/shots/kernel-panic-21-rc2-huangho2.png
> > 
> 
> It died in CFQ.  Please try a different IO scheduler.  Use something
> like
> 
> 	echo deadline > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
> 
> This could still be the old qla2xxx bug, or it could be a new qla2xxx bug,
> or it could be a block bug, or it could be an LVM bug.

OK. I'm running with deadline right now. But I guess this kernel
panic was caused by an LVM bug because lockdep reported problems with
LVM. Nobody responded to my bug report on the LVM mailing list (see
http://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2007-February/msg00102.html).

Non-working snapshots and no help from the mailing list convinced me
to ditch the lvm setup [1] in favour of linear software raid. This
means I can't do lvm-related tests any more.

BTW: Are ext3 filesystem sizes greater than 8T now officially
supported?

Thanks
Andre

[1] vg of two hardware raids, 10T together, a single lv and some snapshots
-- 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)