linux-kernel - Re: [perf/x86] 8de4a00661: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c:80 debug_mutex

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607121916430.4083@nanos>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:19:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
cc:	lkp@...org, tipbuild@...or.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [perf/x86] 8de4a00661: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at
 kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c:80 debug_mutex_unlock+0x20c/0x2b3

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
> > [    1.863354] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c:80 debug_mutex_unlock+0x20c/0x2b3
> > [    1.877193] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(lock->owner != current)
> > 
> > [    1.979431]  [<ffffffff8167508c>] mutex_unlock+0x9/0xb
> > [    1.979431]  [<ffffffff8167508c>] mutex_unlock+0x9/0xb
> > [    1.990691]  [<ffffffff8105a67f>] cpuhp_store_callbacks+0x5a/0x63
> 
> I have a hard time to figure out how that can happen:
> 
> static void cpuhp_store_callbacks(enum cpuhp_state state,
>                                   const char *name,
>                                   int (*startup)(unsigned int cpu),
>                                   int (*teardown)(unsigned int cpu))
> {
>         /* (Un)Install the callbacks for further cpu hotplug operations */
>         struct cpuhp_step *sp;
> 
>         mutex_lock(&cpuhp_state_mutex);
>  	sp = cpuhp_get_step(state);
> 	sp->startup = startup;
>         sp->teardown = teardown;
>         sp->name = name;
>         mutex_unlock(&cpuhp_state_mutex);
> }
> 
> Confused ....

And printing cpuhp_state_mutex.owner does not reduce the confusion level.

[    0.186490] WTF 1           (null)
>         mutex_lock(&cpuhp_state_mutex);
[    0.186848] WTF 2 ffff8800002a4000
>  	sp = cpuhp_get_step(state);
[    0.187174] WTF 3 ffff8800002a4000

and current is:

[    0.205749] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper 
[    0.207410] task: ffff8800002a4000

/me goes digging deeper