| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:25:10 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: next: suspicious RCU usage message since commit 'rcu: Remove
superfluous versions of rcu_read_lock_sched_held()'
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:26:41PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 04/24/2016 10:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:37:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>On 04/24/2016 10:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >>>On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 04:56:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > >>>>After making the same change in _pwrdm_state_switch(), the traceback is gone
> > >>>>from my tests (beagle, beagle-xm, and overo-tobi).
> > >>>
> > >>>Very good!
> > >>>
> > >>>(And yes, you normally find these one at a time...)
> > >>>
> > >>Are you going to submit a formal patch ?
> > >
> > >I can, but please feel free to send mine along with yours, if you wish.
> > >
> > I think it would be best if you send a single patch which fixes both calls.
>
> Like this one?
>
> If so, could you please run it to make sure that it actually fixes the
> problem? And if it does, would you be willing to give me a Tested-by?
>
It does. Tested-by: inline below.
Thanks,
Guenter
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit e3c9e1a46984b8c3e4204f138aced7630c4b85c2
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Sun Apr 24 14:30:16 2016 -0700
>
> arm: Use _rcuidle tracepoint to allow use from idle
>
> Testing on ARM encountered the following pair of lockdep-RCU splats:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ===============================
> [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> 4.6.0-rc4-next-20160422 #1 Not tainted
> -------------------------------
> include/trace/events/power.h:328 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state!
> no locks held by swapper/0/0.
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.6.0-rc4-next-20160422 #1
> Hardware name: Generic OMAP3-GP (Flattened Device Tree)
> [<c010f55c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010b64c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [<c010b64c>] (show_stack) from [<c047acbc>] (dump_stack+0xa8/0xe0)
> [<c047acbc>] (dump_stack) from [<c012bc10>] (pwrdm_set_next_pwrst+0xf8/0x1cc)
> [<c012bc10>] (pwrdm_set_next_pwrst) from [<c01269fc>] (omap3_enter_idle_bm+0x1b8/0x1e8)
> [<c01269fc>] (omap3_enter_idle_bm) from [<c05fa0b8>] (cpuidle_enter_state+0x84/0x408)
> [<c05fa0b8>] (cpuidle_enter_state) from [<c0182c1c>] (cpu_startup_entry+0x1c8/0x3f0)
> [<c0182c1c>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<c0b00c20>] (start_kernel+0x354/0x3cc)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [<c010f55c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010b64c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [<c010b64c>] (show_stack) from [<c047ac3c>] (dump_stack+0xa8/0xe0)
> [<c047ac3c>] (dump_stack) from [<c012c340>] (_pwrdm_state_switch+0x188/0x32c)
> [<c012c340>] (_pwrdm_state_switch) from [<c012c4f0>] (_pwrdm_post_transition_cb+0xc/0x14)
> [<c012c4f0>] (_pwrdm_post_transition_cb) from [<c012ba74>] (pwrdm_for_each+0x30/0x5c)
> [<c012ba74>] (pwrdm_for_each) from [<c012c72c>] (pwrdm_post_transition+0x24/0x30)
> [<c012c72c>] (pwrdm_post_transition) from [<c012548c>] (omap_sram_idle+0xfc/0x240)
> [<c012548c>] (omap_sram_idle) from [<c0126934>] (omap3_enter_idle_bm+0xf0/0x1e8)
> [<c0126934>] (omap3_enter_idle_bm) from [<c05fa038>] (cpuidle_enter_state+0x84/0x408)
> [<c05fa038>] (cpuidle_enter_state) from [<c0182b90>] (cpu_startup_entry+0x1c8/0x3f0)
> [<c0182b90>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<c0b00c20>] (start_kernel+0x354/0x3cc)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These are caused by event tracing from the idle loop. This commit
> therefore adds the _rcuidle suffix to make RCU aware of this implicit
> use of RCU by event tracing, thus preventing both splats.
>
> Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
> index 78af6d8cf2e2..daf2753de7aa 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c
> @@ -186,8 +186,9 @@ static int _pwrdm_state_switch(struct powerdomain *pwrdm, int flag)
> trace_state = (PWRDM_TRACE_STATES_FLAG |
> ((next & OMAP_POWERSTATE_MASK) << 8) |
> ((prev & OMAP_POWERSTATE_MASK) << 0));
> - trace_power_domain_target(pwrdm->name, trace_state,
> - smp_processor_id());
> + trace_power_domain_target_rcuidle(pwrdm->name,
> + trace_state,
> + smp_processor_id());
> }
> break;
> default:
> @@ -523,8 +524,8 @@ int pwrdm_set_next_pwrst(struct powerdomain *pwrdm, u8 pwrst)
>
> if (arch_pwrdm && arch_pwrdm->pwrdm_set_next_pwrst) {
> /* Trace the pwrdm desired target state */
> - trace_power_domain_target(pwrdm->name, pwrst,
> - smp_processor_id());
> + trace_power_domain_target_rcuidle(pwrdm->name, pwrst,
> + smp_processor_id());
> /* Program the pwrdm desired target state */
> ret = arch_pwrdm->pwrdm_set_next_pwrst(pwrdm, pwrst);
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists