| 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: <s5hoaqcdwk4.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 11:37:31 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3
At Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:31:34 +0100,
Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
> > At Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:06:45 +0100,
> > Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
> >> > At Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:34:30 +0100,
> >> > Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com> wrote:
> >> >> > [ Please CC me I am not subscribed to LKML ]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [ QUOTE ]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:46:15PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> >> > > It's a day delayed - not because of any particular development issues,
> >> >> > > but simply because I was tiling a bathroom yesterday. But rc3 is out
> >> >> > > there now, and things have stayed reasonably calm. I really hope that
> >> >> > > implies that 3.19 is looking good, but it's equally likely that it's
> >> >> > > just that people are still recovering from the holiday season.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > A bit over three quarters of the changes here are drivers - mostly
> >> >> > > networking, thermal, input layer, sound, power management. The rest is
> >> >> > > misc - filesystems, core networking, some arch fixes, etc. But all of
> >> >> > > it is pretty small.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So go out and test,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This has been there since just before rc1. Is there a fix for this
> >> >> > stalled in someones git tree maybe ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [ 7.952588] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 299 at kernel/sched/core.c:7303
> >> >> > __might_sleep+0x8d/0xa0()
> >> >> > [ 7.952592] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1
> >> >> > set at [<ffffffff910a0f7a>] prepare_to_wait+0x2a/0x90
> >> >> > [ 7.952595] CPU: 0 PID: 299 Comm: systemd-readahe Not tainted
> >> >> > 3.19.0-rc3+ #100
> >> >> > [ 7.952597] 0000000000001c87 00000000720a2c76 ffff8800b2513c88
> >> >> > ffffffff915b47c7
> >> >> > [ 7.952598] ffffffff910a3648 ffff8800b2513ce0 ffff8800b2513cc8
> >> >> > ffffffff91062c30
> >> >> > [ 7.952599] 0000000000000000 ffffffff91796fb2 000000000000026d
> >> >> > 0000000000000000
> >> >> > [ 7.952600] Call Trace:
> >> >> > [ 7.952603] [<ffffffff915b47c7>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
> >> >> > [ 7.952604] [<ffffffff910a3648>] ? down_trylock+0x28/0x40
> >> >> > [ 7.952606] [<ffffffff91062c30>] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0xc0
> >> >> > [ 7.952607] [<ffffffff91062cc0>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x50/0x70
> >> >> > [ 7.952608] [<ffffffff910a0f7a>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x2a/0x90
> >> >> > [ 7.952610] [<ffffffff910a0f7a>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x2a/0x90
> >> >> > [ 7.952611] [<ffffffff910867ed>] __might_sleep+0x8d/0xa0
> >> >> > [ 7.952614] [<ffffffff915b8ea9>] mutex_lock_nested+0x39/0x3e0
> >> >> > [ 7.952616] [<ffffffff910a77ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> >> >> > [ 7.952617] [<ffffffff910a0fac>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x5c/0x90
> >> >> > [ 7.952620] [<ffffffff911a63e0>] fanotify_read+0xe0/0x5b0
> >> >> > [ 7.952622] [<ffffffff91090801>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc1/0xd0
> >> >> > [ 7.952624] [<ffffffff91242459>] ? selinux_file_permission+0xb9/0x130
> >> >> > [ 7.952626] [<ffffffff910a14d0>] ? prepare_to_wait_event+0xf0/0xf0
> >> >> > [ 7.952628] [<ffffffff91162513>] __vfs_read+0x13/0x50
> >> >> > [ 7.952629] [<ffffffff911625d8>] vfs_read+0x88/0x140
> >> >> > [ 7.952631] [<ffffffff911626e7>] SyS_read+0x57/0xd0
> >> >> > [ 7.952633] [<ffffffff915bd952>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [ /QUOTE ]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am seeing a similiar call-trace/warning.
> >> >> > It is reproducible when running fio (latest: v2.2.4) while my loop-mq
> >> >> > tests (see block.git#for-next)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Some people tend to say it's coming from the linux-aio area [1], but I
> >> >> > am not sure.
> >> >> > 1st I thought this is a Linux-next problem but I am seeing it also
> >> >> > with my rc-kernels.
> >> >> > For parts of aio there is a patch discussed in [2].
> >> >> > The experimental patchset of Ken from [3] made the "aio" call-trace go
> >> >> > away here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I tried also a patch pending in peterz/queue.git#sched/core from Eric Sandeen.
> >> >> > It's "check for stack overflow in ___might_sleep".
> >> >> > Unfortunately, it did not help in case of my loop-mq tests.
> >> >> > ( BTW, this is touching ___might_sleep() (note: triple-underscore VS.
> >> >> > affected __might_sleep() <--- double-underscrore). )
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let me hear your feedback.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Have more fun!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Sedat -
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-aio&m=142033318411355&w=2
> >> >> > [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-aio&m=142035799514685&w=2
> >> >> > [3] http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git/log/?h=aio_ring_fix
> >> >> > [4] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/patch/?id=48e615e4c3ebed488fecb6bfb40b372151f62db2
> >> >>
> >> >> [ CC Takashi ]
> >> >>
> >> >> >From [1]:
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Just "me too" (but overlooked until recently).
> >> >>
> >> >> The cause is a mutex_lock() call right after prepare_to_wait() with
> >> >> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in fanotify_read().
> >> >>
> >> >> static ssize_t fanotify_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> >> >> size_t count, loff_t *pos)
> >> >> {
> >> >> ....
> >> >> while (1) {
> >> >> prepare_to_wait(&group->notification_waitq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >> >> mutex_lock(&group->notification_mutex);
> >> >>
> >> >> I saw Peter already fixed a similar code in inotify_user.c by commit
> >> >> e23738a7300a (but interestingly for a different reason, "Deal with
> >> >> nested sleeps"). Supposedly a similar fix would be needed for
> >> >> fanotify_user.c.
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you explain why do you think the problem is in sched-fanotify?
> >> >>
> >> >> I tried to do such a "similiar" (quick) fix analog to the mentioned
> >> >> "sched, inotify: Deal with nested sleeps" patch from Peter.
> >> >> If I did correct... It does not make the call-trace go away here.
> >> >
> >> > Your code path is different from what Dave and I hit. Take a closer
> >> > look at the stack trace.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, you are right.
> >> I looked again into the code (see thread "Linux 3.19-rc3", I am
> >> reading offline).
> >>
> >> As said aio_ring_fix patchset and especially [1] fixed the issue for me.
> >>
> >> Can you confirm Peter's new patch works-for-you?
> >
> > Yes, it seems working for me at the last time I tried.
> > (BTW, you don't need to add #include <linux/wait.h>)
> >
>
> Just one minute ago, I asked about that?
> Can you explain that - included by another include?
Well, the original code calls the stuff defined in linux/wait.h, so
it's already there obviously.
Takashi
--
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