linux-kernel - Re: Hard lockups using 3.10.0

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: <5775248.AWi0TF0buA@eto>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:02:51 +0200
From:	Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Hard lockups using 3.10.0

Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:52:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:07:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:38:37AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm running 3.10.0 (from openSUSE packages) on an "Intel(R) Core(TM)
> > > > i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz". I got a hard lockup on one of my CPUs twice,
> > > > once with backtrace (see attached image). Graphics is the builtin
> > > > Intel, used with X 7.6 and KDE 4.10beta2 (basically current openSUSE
> > > > 12.3+KDE).
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not aware that I had done anything special, just "normal" desktop
> > > > and
> > > > development usage, but no heavy compile work at the moment the lockups
> > > > happened.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I can see commit_creds() doing some rcu pointers assignment and rcu
> > > calling into the scheduler which screams about a cpu runqueue of the
> > > task we're about to reschedule not being locked. Let's add some more
> > > people who should know better.
> > 
> > Ok, for the other people too lazy to bother finding the picture:
> >   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137353587012001&q=p3
> > 
> > So we bug at:
> > 
> > kernel/sched/core.c:519 assert_raw_spin_locked(&task_rq(p)->lock);
> > 
> > and get there through:
> >   resched_task()
> >   check_preempt_wakeup()
> >   check_preempt_curr()
> >   try_to_wake_up()
> >   autoremove_wake_function()
> >   __call_rcu_nocb_enqueue()
> >   __call_rcu()
> >   commit_creds()
> >   ____call_usermodehelper()
> >   ret_from_fork()
> > 
> > That don't make much sense though. Since:
> >   try_to_wake_up()
> >   
> >     ttwu_queue()
> >     
> >       raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> >       ttwu_do_activate()
> >       
> >         ttwu_do_wakeup()
> >         
> >           check_preempt_curr()
> >           
> >             check_preempt_wakeup()
> >             
> >               resched_task(rq->curr)
> >               
> >                 assert_raw_spin_locked(task_rq(p)->lock)
> > 
> > It would somehow mean that 'task_rq(rq->curr) != rq', that's completely
> > bonkers, we do after all have rq->lock locked.
> > 
> > I must also say that I've _never_ seen this bug before.
> 
> New one on me as well.  Is this reproducible?  If so, does it happen
> when CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n?  (Given the call to call_rcu_nocb_enqueue(),
> I expect that you built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.)  Can't say that I
> see how call_rcu_nocb_enqueue() would have caused this, but...
> 
> Well, I supposed that if RCU's callback lists got corrupted, this
> (and much else besides) could in fact happen.  Does your build have
> CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y?  If not, could you please try it?

I will look tomorrow. This is a "standard" openSUSE kernel RPM, dunno right 
now which repository. It is not really reproducible, it suddenly happened 
again today but this time without backtrace.

Eike
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)