| 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: <1390209726.587.12.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:22:06 +0100
From: Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@...il.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] at drivers/md/raid5.c:291! kernel 3.13-rc8
On mån, 2014-01-20 at 14:37 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:49:17 +0100 Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On mån, 2014-01-20 at 11:38 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:00:23 +0100 Ian Kumlien <ian.kumlien@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, so third try to actually email this...
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I started testing 3.13-rc8 on another machine since the first one seemed
> > > > to be working fine...
> > > >
> > > > One spontaneous reboot later i'm not so sure ;)
> > > >
> > > > Right now i captured a kernel oops in the raid code it seems...
> > > >
> > > > (Also attached to avoid mangling)
> > > >
> > > > [33411.934672] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > [33411.934685] kernel BUG at drivers/md/raid5.c:291!
> > > > [33411.934690] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> > > > [33411.934696] Modules linked in: bonding btrfs microcode
> > > > [33411.934705] CPU: 4 PID: 2319 Comm: md2_raid6 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc8 #83
> > > > [33411.934709] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product Name/Crosshair IV Formula, BIOS 3029 10/09/2012
> > > > [33411.934716] task: ffff880326265880 ti: ffff880320472000 task.ti: ffff880320472000
> > > > [33411.934720] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81a3a5be>] [<ffffffff81a3a5be>] do_release_stripe+0x18e/0x1a0
> > > > [33411.934731] RSP: 0018:ffff880320473d28 EFLAGS: 00010087
> > > > [33411.934735] RAX: ffff8802f0875a60 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: ffff8800b0d816b0
> > > > [33411.934739] RDX: ffff880324eeee98 RSI: ffff8802f0875a40 RDI: ffff880324eeec00
> > > > [33411.934743] RBP: ffff8802f0875a50 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001
> > > > [33411.934747] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff880324eeec00
> > > > [33411.934752] R13: ffff880324eeee58 R14: ffff880320473e88 R15: 0000000000000000
> > > > [33411.934756] FS: 00007fc38654d700(0000) GS:ffff880337d00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > [33411.934761] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> > > > [33411.934765] CR2: 00007f0cb28bd000 CR3: 00000002ebcf6000 CR4: 00000000000407e0
> > > > [33411.934769] Stack:
> > > > [33411.934771] ffff8800bba09690 ffff8800b4f16588 ffff880303005a40 0000000000000001
> > > > [33411.934779] ffff8800b33e43d0 ffffffff81a3a62d ffff880324eeee58 0000000000000000
> > > > [33411.934786] ffff880324eeee58 ffff880326660670 ffff880326265880 ffffffff81a41692
> > > > [33411.934794] Call Trace:
> > > > [33411.934798] [<ffffffff81a3a62d>] ? release_stripe_list+0x4d/0x70
> > > > [33411.934803] [<ffffffff81a41692>] ? raid5d+0xa2/0x4d0
> > > > [33411.934808] [<ffffffff81a65ed6>] ? md_thread+0xe6/0x120
> > > > [33411.934814] [<ffffffff81122060>] ? finish_wait+0x90/0x90
> > > > [33411.934818] [<ffffffff81a65df0>] ? md_rdev_init+0x100/0x100
> > > > [33411.934823] [<ffffffff8110958c>] ? kthread+0xbc/0xe0
> > > > [33411.934828] [<ffffffff81110000>] ? smpboot_park_threads+0x70/0x70Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the report.
> > > Can you provide any more context about the details of the array in question?
> > > I see it was RAID6. Was it degraded? Was it resyncing? Was it being
> > > reshaped?
> > > Was there any way that it was different from the array one the machine where
> > > it seemed to work?
> >
> > Yes, it's a raid6 and no, there is no reshaping or syncing going on...
> >
> > Basically everything worked fine before:
> > reboot system boot 3.13.0-rc8 Sun Jan 19 21:47 - 01:42 (03:55)
> > reboot system boot 3.13.0-rc8 Sun Jan 19 21:38 - 01:42 (04:04)
> > reboot system boot 3.13.0-rc8 Sun Jan 19 12:13 - 01:42 (13:29)
> > reboot system boot 3.13.0-rc8 Sat Jan 18 21:23 - 01:42 (1+04:19)
> > reboot system boot 3.12.6 Mon Dec 30 16:27 - 22:21 (19+05:53)
> >
> > As in, no problems before the 3.13.0-rc8 upgrade...
> >
> > cat /proc/mdstat:
> > Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] [multipath]
> > md2 : active raid6 sdf1[2] sdd1[9] sdj1[8] sdg1[4] sde1[5] sdi1[11] sdc1[0] sdh1[10]
> > 11721074304 blocks super 1.2 level 6, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [8/8] [UUUUUUUU]
> > bitmap: 0/15 pages [0KB], 65536KB chunk
> >
> > What i do do is:
> > echo 32768 > /sys/block/*/md/stripe_cache_size
> >
> > Which has caused no problems during intense write operations before...
> >
> > I find it quite surprising since it only requires ~3 gigabytes of writes
> > to die and almost assume that it's related to the stripe_cache_size.
> > (Since all memory is ECC and i doubt it would break, quite literally,
> > over night i haven't run extensive memory tests)
> >
> > I don't quite know what other information you might need...
>
> Thanks - that extra info is quite useful. Knowing that nothing else unusual
> is happening can be quite valuable (and I don't like to assume).
Yeah, i know, it can be hard to know which information to provide though
=)
> I haven't found anything that would clearly cause your crash, but I have
> found something that looks wrong and conceivably could.
>
> Could you please try this patch on top of what you are currently using? By
> the look of it you get a crash at least every day, often more often. So if
> this produces a day with no crashes, that would be promising.
I haven't been able to crash it yet, it looks like we've found out
culprit =)
> The important aspect of the patch is that it moves the "atomic_inc" of
> "sh->count" back under the protection of ->device_lock in the case when some
> other thread might be using the same 'sh'.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 3088d3af5a89..03f82ab87d9e 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -675,8 +675,10 @@ get_active_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sector,
> || !conf->inactive_blocked),
> *(conf->hash_locks + hash));
> conf->inactive_blocked = 0;
> - } else
> + } else {
> init_stripe(sh, sector, previous);
> + atomic_inc(&sh->count);
> + }
> } else {
> spin_lock(&conf->device_lock);
> if (atomic_read(&sh->count)) {
> @@ -695,13 +697,11 @@ get_active_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sector,
> sh->group = NULL;
> }
> }
> + atomic_inc(&sh->count);
> spin_unlock(&conf->device_lock);
> }
> } while (sh == NULL);
>
> - if (sh)
> - atomic_inc(&sh->count);
> -
> spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + hash);
> return sh;
> }
--
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