Message-id: <4B3BC2DC.7030201@majjas.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:15:08 -0500
From:	Michael Breuer <mbreuer@...jas.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Berck E. Nash" <flyboy@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: audit.c skb - tty race condition - was sky2 panic in 2.6.32.1
 under load (new oops)

On 12/30/2009 3:44 PM, Michael Breuer wrote:
> A couple more observations:
>
> 1) enabling auditd for runlevel 3 mitigates the issue
> 2) starting a remote x session (XDMCP) while under load and while 
> auditd is already running also triggers the sky2 interrupt status 
> messages - so maybe not tty1 - but some sort of X & auditd 
> interaction. Even in this case, the frequency of the error messages is 
> much less than when auditd is started in runlevel 5 for the first time.
And just for some certainty - running with audit=0, the errors do not 
manifest.
>
> On 12/30/2009 2:15 PM, Michael Breuer wrote:
>> And now looking at audit.c it seems reasonable that there is a race 
>> condition when auditd is started at roughly the same time as X. I'm 
>> guessing that the kaudit thread is fired up; the tty connected; and 
>> at the same time X grabs the tty. Somewhere in there an skb gets 
>> hosed and is then reused by whatever comes along - in my case sky2 as 
>> that's where the subsequent demand is. If the demand happens first, 
>> the contaminated skb (dk in what way yet) is probably waiting to 
>> manifest as some other bug that's been frustrating people.
>> On 12/30/2009 12:49 PM, Michael Breuer wrote:
>>> On 12/30/2009 2:58 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:23:20 -0500
>>>> Michael Breuer<mbreuer@...jas.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok - I called dump_txring from sky2_net_intr:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/sky2.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/sky2.c
>>>>> @@ -2725,8 +2791,10 @@ static void sky2_watchdog(unsigned long arg)
>>>>>    /* Hardware/software error handling */
>>>>>    static void sky2_err_intr(struct sky2_hw *hw, u32 status)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> -       if (net_ratelimit())
>>>>> +       if (net_ratelimit()) {
>>>>>                   dev_warn(&hw->pdev->dev, "error interrupt
>>>>> status=%#x\n", status);
>>>>> +               dump_txring(hw, 0);
>>>>> +       }
>>>>>
>>>>>           if (status&  Y2_IS_HW_ERR)
>>>>>                   sky2_hw_intr(hw);
>>>>>
>>>>> And got this:
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 0000:06:00.0: error interrupt
>>>>> status=0x40000008
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 0000:06:00.0: error interrupt
>>>>> status=0x40000008
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 Tx ring pending=28...30 
>>>>> report=29 done=29
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 Tx ring pending=28...30 
>>>>> report=29 done=29
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 0000:06:00.0: error interrupt 
>>>>> status=0x8
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 0000:06:00.0: error interrupt 
>>>>> status=0x8
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 Tx ring pending=30...32 
>>>>> report=30 done=31
>>>>> Dec 30 02:17:23 mail kernel: sky2 Tx ring pending=30...32 
>>>>> report=30 done=31
>>>>>
>>>> I notice that you have NOUVEAU Nvidia drivers loaded? The one 
>>>> difference in HW
>>>> between your board and mine is that I have ATI video card.
>>>>
>>> Seems the problem is linked to auditd and X11 (but not nouveau).
>>>
>>> Today, I ran a bunch of scenarios. I first determined that the 
>>> problem only manifest in runlevel 5. Next, this occurred with or 
>>> without KMS and with or without nouveau. This happened whether or 
>>> not I was logged in (local or remote), and regardless of window 
>>> manager (xdm, gdm, kdm). I then checked to see what else was 
>>> different between runlevel 3 and 5 - only thing was auditd. I 
>>> disabled auditd and reran - no errors.
>>>
>>> Now for the odd stuff:
>>>
>>> The errors only manifest if the high throughput data transfer is 
>>> initiated when the system is in runlevel 5 and auditd was started by 
>>> init when transitioning from runlevel 3 to 5. For example, the 
>>> following scenarios do not cause the errors to manifest:
>>>
>>> runlevel3; start auditd runlevel 5; start transfer
>>> runlevel3; chkconfig auditd off; runlevel5; start auditd; start 
>>> transfer
>>> runlevel3; start transfer (note: errors do not occur if I transition 
>>> to runlevel 5 after the high bandwidth transfer has started)
>>> runlevel3; startx; start transfer
>>>
>>> The only way I get the problem to manifest is transition to runlevel 
>>> 5 with chkconfig auditd on (level 5 only) and then initate the 
>>> windows backup.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that there is some sort of race condition happening 
>>> between X (xdm/gdm/kdm/greeter?) and auditd that is somehow 
>>> corrupting something. I'd hazard a more or less obvious guess that 
>>> whatever's being corrupted differs when there is already a high 
>>> throughput transfer under way.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/
>
> -- 
> 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/

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists