linux-kernel - Re: kvm deadlock

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

Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:43:09 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC:	Nate Custer <nate@...nel.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: kvm deadlock

On 12/14/2011 02:25 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:48:16PM -0600, Nate Custer wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I am struggling with repeatable full hardware locks when running 8-12 KVM vms. At some point before the hard lock I get a inconsistent lock state warning. An example of this can be found here:
> > 
> > http://pastebin.com/8wKhgE2C
> > 
> > After that the server continues to run for a while and then starts its death spiral. When it reaches that point it fails to log anything further to the disk, but by attaching a console I have been able to get a stack trace documenting the final implosion:
> > 
> > http://pastebin.com/PbcN76bd
> > 
> > All of the cores end up hung and the server stops responding to all input, including SysRq commands. 
> > 
> > I have seen this behavior on two machines (dual E5606 running Fedora 16) both passed cpuburnin testing and memtest86 scans without error. 
> > 
> > I have reproduced the crash and stack traces from a Fedora debugging kernel - 3.1.2-1 and with a vanilla 3.1.4 kernel.
>
> Busted hardware, apparently. Can you reproduce these issues with the
> same workload on different hardware?

I don't think it's hardware related.  The second trace (in the first
paste) is called during swap, so GFP_FS is set.  The first one is not,
so GFP_FS is clear.  Lockdep is worried about the following scenario:

  acpi_early_init() is called
  calls pcpu_alloc(), which takes pcpu_alloc_mutex
  eventually, calls kmalloc(), or some other allocation function
  no memory, so swap
  call try_to_free_pages()
  submit_bio()
  blk_throtl_bio()
  blkio_alloc_blkg_stats()
  alloc_percpu()
  pcpu_alloc(), which takes pcpu_alloc_mutex
  deadlock

It's a little unlikely that acpi_early_init() will OOM, but lockdep
doesn't know that.  Other callers of pcpu_alloc() could trigger the same
thing.

When lockdep says

[ 5839.924953] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 5839.925396]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 5839.925397]
[ 5839.925840]        CPU0
[ 5839.926063]        ----
[ 5839.926287]   lock(pcpu_alloc_mutex);
[ 5839.926533]   <Interrupt>
[ 5839.926756]     lock(pcpu_alloc_mutex);
[ 5839.926986]

It really means

   <swap, set GFP_FS>

GFP_FS simply marks the beginning of a nested, unrelated context that
uses the same thread, just like an interrupt.  Kudos to lockdep for
catching that.

I think the allocation in blkio_alloc_blkg_stats() should be moved out
of the I/O path into some init function. Copying Jens.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/