linux-kernel - Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

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: <20140530161647.GD11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 May 2014 18:16:47 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [prink]  BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > [    7.492350] ======================================================
> > [    7.492350] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [    7.492350] 3.15.0-rc5-00567-gbafe980 #1 Not tainted
> > [    7.492350] -------------------------------------------------------
> > [    7.492350] swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [    7.492350]  (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-...}, at: [<8107dc8c>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x3c/0x70
> > [    7.492350] 
> > [    7.492350] but task is already holding lock:
> > [    7.492350]  (&port_lock_key){......}, at: [<815f5b27>] serial8250_startup+0x337/0x720
> > [    7.492350] 
> > [    7.492350] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [    7.492350] 
> > [    7.492350] 
> > [    7.492350] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [    7.492350] 
> > -> #2 (&port_lock_key){......}:
> > [    7.492350]        [<810750e5>] lock_acquire+0x85/0x190
> > [    7.492350]        [<81baed9d>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4d/0x60
> > [    7.492350]        [<8106eb1c>] down_trylock+0xc/0x30
> > [    7.492350]        [<8107b795>] console_trylock+0x15/0xb0
> > [    7.492350]        [<8107be8f>] vprintk_emit+0x14f/0x4d0
> > [    7.492350]        [<81b969b9>] printk+0x38/0x3a
> > [    7.492350]        [<82137f78>] print_ICs+0x5b/0x3e7
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212bb41>] do_one_initcall+0x8b/0x128
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212bd7d>] kernel_init_freeable+0x19f/0x236
> > [    7.492350]        [<81b9238b>] kernel_init+0xb/0xd0
> > [    7.492350]        [<81bb0080>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x20/0x30
>
>   But this looks really strange. How can we possibly get port_lock_key in
> down_trylock() which calls raw_spin_lock_irqsave() on console_sem->lock?
> That looks like some strange lockdep key aliasing issue? Peter do you have
> any idea?

No, strange that, I can't say I've ever seen a bogus stracktrace in
lockdep reports like this.

So this is through: check_prev_add()->save_trace(). And that doesn't
reuse entries, at worst it can truncate a trace when we run out of
entries, but the above looks complete since it terminates in
lock_acquire(), which is the right place to be.

But its worse than that, the above trace should link i8259A_lock to
port_lock_key, and I can't see where we would have taken i8259A_lock
either.

So not only does it not terminate at taking the right lock, it doesn't
even take the previous lock.

> > -> #1 (i8259A_lock){-.....}:
> > [    7.492350]        [<810750e5>] lock_acquire+0x85/0x190
> > [    7.492350]        [<81baed9d>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4d/0x60
> > [    7.492350]        [<81005af1>] unmask_8259A_irq+0x11/0x60
> > [    7.492350]        [<81005b4b>] enable_8259A_irq+0xb/0x10
> > [    7.492350]        [<8107fffb>] irq_enable+0x2b/0x40
> > [    7.492350]        [<8108005d>] irq_startup+0x4d/0x60
> > [    7.492350]        [<8107f2bc>] __setup_irq+0x39c/0x460
> > [    7.492350]        [<8107f433>] setup_irq+0x33/0x80
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212db15>] setup_default_timer_irq+0xf/0x11
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212db2d>] hpet_time_init+0x16/0x18
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212daff>] x86_late_time_init+0x9/0x10
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212ba3d>] start_kernel+0x331/0x3aa
> > [    7.492350]        [<8212b380>] i386_start_kernel+0x12e/0x131
> > [    7.492350] 

And this one looks legit, weird that.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped