[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOxq_8Psb9_r2r=s4QTTxMVveCOKOxtS08JNJaTYUWpAc+_TWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:57:09 -0800
From: Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ivan Delalande <colona@...sta.com>,
fruggeri <fruggeri@...sta.com>
Subject: new warning on sysrq kernel crash trigger
Hi guys
I am noticing a new warning in linux 3.18 which we did not see before
in linux 3.4 :
bash-4.1# echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger
[ 978.807185] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
../arch/x86/mm/fault.c:1187
[ 978.909816] in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 4706, name: bash
[ 978.987358] Preemption disabled at:[<ffffffff81484339>] printk+0x48/0x4a
I have bisected this to the following change :
commit 984d74a72076a12b400339973e8c98fd2fcd90e5
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Date: Fri Jun 6 14:38:13 2014 -0700
sysrq: rcu-ify __handle_sysrq
the rcu_read_lock() in handle_sysrq() bumps up
current->rcu_read_lock_nesting. Hence, in __do_page_fault() when it
calls might_sleep() in x86/mm/fault.c line 1191,
preempt_count_equals(0) returns false and hence the warning is
printed.
One way to handle this would be to do something like this:
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
index eef44d9..d4dbe22 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
@@ -1132,7 +1132,7 @@ __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
long error_code,
* If we're in an interrupt, have no user context or are running
* in a region with pagefaults disabled then we must not take the fault
*/
- if (unlikely(faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)) {
+ if (unlikely(faulthandler_disabled() || rcu_preempt_depth() || !mm)) {
bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, error_code, address);
return;
}
I am wondering if this would be the right approach. I have tested that
this patch does indeed suppress the warning. If you guys agree, I will
send a patch. It's true that this is a trivial issue since we are
intentionally crashing the kernel but in our case, this additional
complaint from the kernel is confusing our test scripts and they are
generating false positives.
--
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