| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4CAD03C5.2060205@candelatech.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:18:29 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mmotm 2010-08-11 - RCU whinge during very early boot
On 10/06/2010 04:04 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 12:05:13PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> 2010/8/12<Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>:
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:10:49 PDT, akpm@...ux-foundation.org said:
>>>> The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-08-11-16-10 has been uploaded to
>>>>
>>>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>>>
>>> Throws a RCU complaint. Hopefully somebody on the cc: list knows what it is about...
>>>
>>> [ 0.026136] CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz stepping 0a
>>> [ 0.028399] NMI watchdog enabled, takes one hw-pmu counter.
>>> [ 0.030019] lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
>>> [ 0.031178]
>>> [ 0.031179] ===================================================
>>> [ 0.031182] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
>>> [ 0.031184] ---------------------------------------------------
>>> [ 0.031187] kernel/sched.c:618 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
>>> [ 0.031189]
>>> [ 0.031189] other info that might help us debug this:
>>> [ 0.031190]
>>> [ 0.031192]
>>> [ 0.031193] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
>>> [ 0.031195] 3 locks held by kworker/0:0/4:
>>> [ 0.031197] #0: (events){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810504ca>] process_one_work+0x1b6/0x37d
>>> [ 0.031210] #1: ((&c_idle.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810504ca>] process_one_work+0x1b6/0x37d
>>> [ 0.031217] #2: (&rq->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81b5f9b8>] init_idle+0x2b/0x114
>>> [ 0.031225]
>>> [ 0.031226] stack backtrace:
>>> [ 0.031229] Pid: 4, comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 2.6.35-mmotm0811 #1
>>> [ 0.031232] Call Trace:
>>> [ 0.031237] [<ffffffff810661eb>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa5
>>> [ 0.031242] [<ffffffff8102b751>] task_group+0x7b/0x8a
>>> [ 0.031246] [<ffffffff81b5f9b8>] ? init_idle+0x2b/0x114
>>> [ 0.031250] [<ffffffff8102b775>] set_task_rq+0x15/0x6e
>>> [ 0.031253] [<ffffffff81b5fa5e>] init_idle+0xd1/0x114
>>> [ 0.031257] [<ffffffff81b5fb44>] fork_idle+0x8e/0x9d
>>> [ 0.031261] [<ffffffff81b5de6f>] do_fork_idle+0x17/0x28
>>> [ 0.031265] [<ffffffff8105052b>] process_one_work+0x217/0x37d
>>> [ 0.031269] [<ffffffff810504ca>] ? process_one_work+0x1b6/0x37d
>>> [ 0.031273] [<ffffffff81b5de58>] ? do_fork_idle+0x0/0x28
>>> [ 0.031277] [<ffffffff81051775>] worker_thread+0x17e/0x251
>>> [ 0.031281] [<ffffffff810515f7>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x251
>>> [ 0.031285] [<ffffffff8105544a>] kthread+0x7d/0x85
>>> [ 0.031290] [<ffffffff81003554>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>>> [ 0.031295] [<ffffffff81558d80>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
>>> [ 0.031299] [<ffffffff810553cd>] ? kthread+0x0/0x85
>>> [ 0.031303] [<ffffffff81003550>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
>>> [ 0.031333] Booting Node 0, Processors #1 Ok.
>>> [ 0.103111] NMI watchdog enabled, takes one hw-pmu counter.
>>> [ 0.104013] Brought up 2 CPUs
>>>
>>
>> I'm still seeing this INFO message on my vanilla 2.6.36-rc kernel.
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> ftrace: converting mcount calls to 0f 1f 44 00 00
>> ftrace: allocating 16045 entries in 63 pages
>> Setting APIC routing to flat
>> ..TIMER: vector=0x30 apic1=0 pin1=2 apic2=-1 pin2=-1
>> CPU0: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz stepping 0a
>> NMI watchdog enabled, takes one hw-pmu counter.
>> lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
>>
>> ===================================================
>> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> kernel/sched.c:618 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>
>>
>> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
>> 3 locks held by kworker/0:0/4:
>> #0: (events){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8106e78e>] process_one_work+0x12e/0x560
>> #1: ((&c_idle.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8106e78e>]
>> process_one_work+0x12e/0x560
>> #2: (&rq->lock){......}, at: [<ffffffff814772c3>] init_idle+0x30/0x12c
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> Pid: 4, comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 2.6.36-rc6-00085-g6e34025 #1
>> Call Trace:
>> [<ffffffff81089c1b>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbb/0xc0
>> [<ffffffff8103e7d5>] set_task_rq+0x2f5/0x300
>> [<ffffffff81477374>] init_idle+0xe1/0x12c
>> [<ffffffff81477769>] fork_idle+0x90/0x9f
>> [<ffffffff81048dfa>] ? enqueue_entity+0x13a/0x430
>> [<ffffffff81482789>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x59/0x60
>> [<ffffffff814752f5>] do_fork_idle+0x1c/0x2d
>> [<ffffffff8106e7fa>] process_one_work+0x19a/0x560
>> [<ffffffff8106e78e>] ? process_one_work+0x12e/0x560
>> [<ffffffff814752d9>] ? do_fork_idle+0x0/0x2d
>> [<ffffffff81070189>] worker_thread+0x169/0x340
>> [<ffffffff81070020>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x340
>> [<ffffffff810752e6>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff81004014>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>> [<ffffffff8147efcb>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x3b/0x60
>> [<ffffffff8147f600>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
>> [<ffffffff81075240>] ? kthread+0x0/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff81004010>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
>> Booting Node 0, Processors #1 Ok.
>> TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]:
>> Measured 399476 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC clock.
>> Marking TSC unstable due to check_tsc_sync_source failed
>> NMI watchdog enabled, takes one hw-pmu counter.
>> Brought up 2 CPUs
>> Total of 2 processors activated (8781.86 BogoMIPS).
>> regulator: core version 0.5
>> regulator: dummy:
>> Time: 7:44:09 Date: 10/05/10
>
> Hello, Zdenek,
>
> I believe that the following patch from Peter Z. should address this.
>
> Thanx, Paul
I get a similar lockdep splat, even with that patch applied,
so I think it is not completely fixed.
I'm using wireless-testing, which is based on 2.6.36-rc6.
See my previous email:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/fcef23494cfda353
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists