linux-kernel - Re: [trace events] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 91 at kernel/sched/core.c:7253 __might

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: <20141008110825.58bdb51d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:08:25 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@...el.com>,
	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [trace events] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 91 at
 kernel/sched/core.c:7253 __might_sleep()

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:41:20 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:06:13PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > [    8.867644] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 91 at kernel/sched/core.c:7253 __might_sleep+0x9a/0x378()
> > [    8.869031] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<ffffffff8d79b511>] event_test_thread+0x48/0x93

I'm curious, what blocking ops was called?

> > [    8.870533] Modules linked in:
> > [    8.870979] CPU: 0 PID: 91 Comm: test-events Not tainted 3.17.0-rc7-00109-g2f85d18 #37
> > [    8.872061] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.7.5-20140531_083030-gandalf 04/01/2014
> > [    8.873428]  0000000000000000 ffff880010ec3c80 ffffffff8c696943 ffff880010ec3cb8
> > [    8.874503]  ffffffff8be7cae5 ffffffff8bead236 0000000000000001 ffff88001161fa01
> > [    8.888390]  0000000000000001 0000000000000000 ffff880010ec3d20 ffffffff8be7cb46
> > [    8.890628] Call Trace:
> > [    8.890978]  [<ffffffff8c696943>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> > [    8.891689]  [<ffffffff8be7cae5>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8f/0xa8
> > [    8.892535]  [<ffffffff8bead236>] ? __might_sleep+0x9a/0x378
> > [    8.893307]  [<ffffffff8be7cb46>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x48/0x50
> > [    8.894083]  [<ffffffff8be0dd55>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0xd
> > [    8.894797]  [<ffffffff8d79b511>] ? event_test_thread+0x48/0x93
> > [    8.895602]  [<ffffffff8d79b511>] ? event_test_thread+0x48/0x93
> > [    8.896421]  [<ffffffff8bead236>] __might_sleep+0x9a/0x378
> > [    8.897164]  [<ffffffff8c6a0227>] down_read+0x26/0x98
> > [    8.897855]  [<ffffffff8be8f503>] exit_signals+0x27/0x1c2
> > [    8.898598]  [<ffffffff8be7fedd>] do_exit+0x193/0x10bd
> > [    8.899298]  [<ffffffff8bfd1969>] ? kfree+0x4a0/0x4d7
> > [    8.900028]  [<ffffffff8d79b4c9>] ? event_trace_self_tests+0x6d7/0x6d7
> > [    8.900946]  [<ffffffff8d79b4c9>] ? event_trace_self_tests+0x6d7/0x6d7
> > [    8.914871]  [<ffffffff8bea4b65>] kthread+0x156/0x156
> > [    8.915571]  [<ffffffff8c69c0f8>] ? wait_for_common+0x3e/0x224
> > [    8.916381]  [<ffffffff8bea4a0f>] ? insert_kthread_work+0xe7/0xe7
> > [    8.917203]  [<ffffffff8c6a353a>] ret_from_fork+0x7a/0xb0
> > [    8.917937]  [<ffffffff8bea4a0f>] ? insert_kthread_work+0xe7/0xe7
> > [    8.918800] ---[ end trace 14d02ef17adbc114 ]---
> 
> 
> Steve, wth is that thing supposed to do?
> 
> 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> 	while (!kthread_should_stop())
> 		schedule();
> 
> That looks broken alright. It'll revert to a yield() 'spin' loop if it
> ever gets a wakeup for anything other than the kthread_stop().
> 
> Did you mean to write something like:
> 
> 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> 	while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> 		schedule();
> 		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> 	}
> 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> 
> ?

Wow, what a blast from the past. That code hasn't been touched since
2009!

Anyway, all that thread did was call test work on each cpu, and then
waits to be killed. It should only get a single wake up and that should
be from the kthread_stop() call. IOW, that loop should never be
executed more than once.

What exactly is the bug here?

-- Steve
--
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/