linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.26-rc5-git2] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2658 check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:55:59 +0200
From:	"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To:	"Alessandro Suardi" <alessandro.suardi@...il.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [2.6.26-rc5-git2] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2658 check_flags+0x4c/0x128()

Hi,

Thanks for reporting!

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Alessandro Suardi
<alessandro.suardi@...il.com> wrote:
> Recently upgraded my FC6 desktop to Fedora 9; with the
>  latest nautilus RPM updates my VNC session went nuts
>  with nautilus pegging the CPU for everything that breathed.
>
> I now reverted to an earlier nautilus package, but during
>  the peak CPU period my kernel spat this:
>
> [314185.623294] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [314185.623414] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2658 check_flags+0x4c/0x128()
> [314185.623514] Modules linked in: iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables
> sunrpc ipv6 fuse snd_via82xx snd_ac97_codec ac97_bus snd_mpu401_uart
> snd_rawmidi via686a hwmon parport_pc sg parport uhci_hcd ehci_hcd
> [314185.623924] Pid: 12314, comm: nautilus Not tainted 2.6.26-rc5-git2 #4
> [314185.624021]  [<c0115b95>] warn_on_slowpath+0x41/0x7b
> [314185.624021]  [<c010de70>] ? do_page_fault+0x2c1/0x5fd
> [314185.624021]  [<c0128396>] ? up_read+0x16/0x28
> [314185.624021]  [<c010de70>] ? do_page_fault+0x2c1/0x5fd
> [314185.624021]  [<c012fa33>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbb4/0xbc3
> [314185.624021]  [<c012d0a0>] check_flags+0x4c/0x128
> [314185.624021]  [<c012fa73>] lock_acquire+0x31/0x7d
> [314185.624021]  [<c0128cf6>] __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x30/0x80
> [314185.624021]  [<c0128cc6>] ? __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x0/0x80
> [314185.624021]  [<c0128d52>] atomic_notifier_call_chain+0xc/0xe
> [314185.624021]  [<c0128d81>] notify_die+0x2d/0x2f
> [314185.624021]  [<c01043b0>] do_int3+0x1f/0x4d
> [314185.624021]  [<c02f2d3b>] int3+0x27/0x2c
> [314185.624021]  =======================
> [314185.624021] ---[ end trace 1923f65a2d7bb246 ]---
> [314185.624021] possible reason: unannotated irqs-off.
> [314185.624021] irq event stamp: 488879
> [314185.624021] hardirqs last  enabled at (488879): [<c0102d67>]
> restore_nocheck+0x12/0x15
> [314185.624021] hardirqs last disabled at (488878): [<c0102dca>]
> work_resched+0x19/0x30
> [314185.624021] softirqs last  enabled at (488876): [<c011a1ba>]
> __do_softirq+0xa6/0xac
> [314185.624021] softirqs last disabled at (488865): [<c010476e>]
> do_softirq+0x57/0xa6
>
> I didn't seem to find it with some googling, so here it is.
>
> I was incidentally ltracing that process to try and find out
>  what was gulping down that much CPU (sorry, no idea
>  whether ltrace and the WARNING happened at the same
>  time or which came first) and:

Yeah, this is extremely likely to be the source of the warning.

The warning should be harmless, however.

> Box is my trusty noname K7-800, 512MB RAM; if there's
>  anything else useful I might be able to provide, just ask.

It would be interesting to see where the int3 comes from.  Too bad,
lockdep doesn't provide the register dump. The stacktrace also doesn't
go further than the int3(), I wonder if this int3 came from userspace?
The ltrace readme says "software breakpoints, like gdb", so I guess
this is the case. Yep, seems like it.

This looks relevant, so I'm adding a Cc here as well:

commit fb1dac909d94ff807cd833d340c6827c3a957159
Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date:   Wed Jan 16 09:51:59 2008 +0100

    lockdep: more hardirq annotations for notify_die()

I'm attaching a similarly-looking patch for this case (DO_VM86_ERROR),
though I suspect it might be missing for the other cases
(DO_ERROR/DO_ERROR_INFO) as well.

Does this look like the right fix?

(The patch is also inlined, but expect whitespace breakage.)


Vegard


From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:49:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] x86: more hardirq annotations for notify_die()

Reported-by: Alessandro Suardi <alessandro.suardi@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c
index bde6f63..be9ecae 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c
@@ -569,6 +569,7 @@ void do_##name(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)			\
 #define DO_VM86_ERROR(trapnr, signr, str, name)				\
 void do_##name(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)			\
 {									\
+	trace_hardirqs_fixup();						\
 	if (notify_die(DIE_TRAP, str, regs, error_code, trapnr, signr)	\
 						== NOTIFY_STOP)		\
 		return;							\
-- 
1.5.4.1

View attachment "0001-x86-more-hardirq-annotations-for-notify_die.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (955 bytes)