linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] (xen) stable/for-jens-3.14 : NFO: trying to register non-static key. the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.

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: <52FA6072.40908@citrix.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:40:02 +0100
From:	Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To:	Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:	<david.vrabel@...rix.com>, <mrushton@...zon.com>, <msw@...zon.com>,
	<boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] (xen) stable/for-jens-3.14 : NFO: trying
 to register non-static key. the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.

On 11/02/14 17:07, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> 
> Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 4:56:50 PM, you wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:52:15PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>> Hi Konrad,
>>>
>>> Today decided to tryout another kernel RC and your pull request to Jens on top of it .. and I encoutered this one:
> 
>> Thank you for testing!
> 
>> Could you provide the .config file please?
> 
> Attached
> 
>> Did you see this _before_ the pull request with Jens? I presume
>> not, but just double checking?
> 
> Nope not too my knowledge (though it's a bit messy with things broken on 3.14 at the moment)
> 
>> And lastly - what were you doing when you triggered this? Just launching
>> a guest?
> 
> Nope it triggers on guest shutdown ..
> 
> 
>> CC-ing Roger and other folks who were on the patches.
> 
>>>
>>>
>>> [  438.029756] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
>>> [  438.029759] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
>>> [  438.029760] turning off the locking correctness validator.
>>> [  438.029770] CPU: 3 PID: 9593 Comm: blkback.2.xvda Tainted: G        W    3.14.0-rc2-20140211-pcireset-net-btrevert-xenblock+ #1
>>> [  438.029773] Hardware name: MSI MS-7640/890FXA-GD70 (MS-7640)  , BIOS V1.8B1 09/13/2010
>>> [  438.029784]  ffff88005224c4f0 ffff88004e5d9b68 ffffffff81b808c4 ffff88004ba2b510
>>> [  438.029791]  0000000000000002 ffff88004e5d9c38 ffffffff81116eab ffff88004e5d9bf8
>>> [  438.029798]  ffffffff81117b35 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffffffff82cee570
>>> [  438.029799] Call Trace:
>>> [  438.029815]  [<ffffffff81b808c4>] dump_stack+0x46/0x58
>>> [  438.029826]  [<ffffffff81116eab>] __lock_acquire+0x1c2b/0x2220
>>> [  438.029833]  [<ffffffff81117b35>] ? lock_acquire+0xe5/0x150
>>> [  438.029841]  [<ffffffff81117b0d>] lock_acquire+0xbd/0x150
>>> [  438.029847]  [<ffffffff810e5965>] ? flush_work+0x5/0x290
>>> [  438.029852]  [<ffffffff810e599d>] flush_work+0x3d/0x290
>>> [  438.029856]  [<ffffffff810e5965>] ? flush_work+0x5/0x290
>>> [  438.029863]  [<ffffffff81117b35>] ? lock_acquire+0xe5/0x150
>>> [  438.029872]  [<ffffffff816fef01>] ? xen_blkif_schedule+0x1a1/0x8d0
>>> [  438.029881]  [<ffffffff81b8ae0d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x6d/0x90
>>> [  438.029888]  [<ffffffff8111392b>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfb/0x240
>>> [  438.029894]  [<ffffffff81113a7d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>> [  438.029901]  [<ffffffff816fefe9>] xen_blkif_schedule+0x289/0x8d0
>>> [  438.029907]  [<ffffffff8110d510>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x60/0x60
>>> [  438.029913]  [<ffffffff81113a7d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>> [  438.029919]  [<ffffffff81b8ae21>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x81/0x90
>>> [  438.029925]  [<ffffffff816fed60>] ? xen_blkif_be_int+0x40/0x40
>>> [  438.029932]  [<ffffffff810ee374>] kthread+0xe4/0x100
>>> [  438.029938]  [<ffffffff81b8afe0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x50
>>> [  438.029946]  [<ffffffff810ee290>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>>> [  438.029951]  [<ffffffff81b8c1fc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>> [  438.029958]  [<ffffffff810ee290>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>>>
>>> Doesn't seem to serious .. but never the less :-)

Thanks for the report!

Does the following patch solve the problem?

---
commit c1460953d081c8a18ac9e84fe90f696cdceae105
Author: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>
Date:   Tue Feb 11 17:21:19 2014 +0100

    xen-blkback: init persistent_purge_work work_struct
    
    Do a dummy initialization of the persistent_purge_work
    work_struct on xen_blkif_alloc, so that when flush_work is called on
    shutdown the struct is initialized even if it hasn't been used.
    
    Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>

diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
index 84973c6..3df7575 100644
--- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
+++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
@@ -129,6 +129,17 @@ static struct xen_blkif *xen_blkif_alloc(domid_t domid)
 	blkif->free_pages_num = 0;
 	atomic_set(&blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use, 0);
 	atomic_set(&blkif->inflight, 0);
+	/*
+	 * Init the work struct with a NULL function, this is done
+	 * so that flush_work doesn't complain when shutting down if
+	 * persistent_purge_work has not been used during the lifetime
+	 * of this blkback instance.
+	 *
+	 * NB: In purge_persistent_gnt we make sure that
+	 * persistent_purge_work is always correctly setup with a valid
+	 * function pointer before being scheduled.
+	 */
+	INIT_WORK(&blkif->persistent_purge_work, NULL);
 
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&blkif->pending_free);
 


--
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/