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]
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 23:01:38 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [locking/ww_mutex] 2a0c112828 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 18 at
 kernel/locking/mutex.c:305 __ww_mutex_wakeup_for_backoff

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:28:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> > > reproducible and looks still alive in mainline&linux-next. You may
> > > try the attached reproduce-* script to debug it.
> > 
> > OK, let me try that, however, see below.
> 
> What that reproduces does is:
> 
> 
> [   17.169056] =====================================
> [   17.171014] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> [   17.172115] 4.10.0-10265-ge5d56ef #18 Not tainted
> [   17.172115] -------------------------------------
> [   17.172115] kworker/u2:0/5 is trying to release lock (ww_class_mutex) at:
> [   17.172115] [<41575474>] ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
> [   17.172115] but there are no more locks to release!
> [   17.172115] 
> [   17.172115] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   17.172115] 
> [   17.172115] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   17.172115] 4 locks held by kworker/u2:0/5:
> [   17.172115]  #0:  ("test-ww_mutex"){......}, at: [<41041def>] process_one_work+0x168/0x33a
> [   17.172115]  #1:  ((&stress->work)){......}, at: [<41041def>] process_one_work+0x168/0x33a
> [   17.172115]  #2:  (ww_class_acquire){......}, at: [<41041e47>] process_one_work+0x1c0/0x33a
> [   17.172115]  #3:  (ww_class_mutex){......}, at: [<41057d98>] stress_inorder_work+0xbf/0x218
> [   17.172115] 
> [   17.172115] stack backtrace:
> [   17.172115] 
> [   17.172115] stack backtrace:
> [   17.172115] CPU: 0 PID: 5 Comm: kworker/u2:0 Not tainted 4.10.0-10265-ge5d56ef #18
> [   17.172115] Workqueue: test-ww_mutex stress_inorder_work
> [   17.172115] Call Trace:
> [   17.172115]  dump_stack+0x16/0x18
> [   17.172115]  print_unlock_imbalance_bug+0xb4/0xc1
> [   17.172115]  ? ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
> [   17.172115]  lock_release+0x28d/0x2bb
> [   17.172115]  ? ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
> [   17.172115]  __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x2d/0x1db
> [   17.172115]  ? schedule_hrtimeout_range+0xd/0xf
> [   17.172115]  mutex_unlock+0xb/0xd
> [   17.172115]  ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
> [   17.172115]  stress_inorder_work+0x10a/0x218
> [   17.172115]  process_one_work+0x1c0/0x33a
> [   17.172115]  ? process_one_work+0x168/0x33a
> [   17.172115]  worker_thread+0x22f/0x315
> [   17.172115]  kthread+0xed/0xf2
> [   17.172115]  ? process_scheduled_works+0x24/0x24
> [   17.172115]  ? __kthread_create_on_node+0x11f/0x11f
> [   17.172115]  ret_from_fork+0x21/0x30
> 
> Which is an entirely different error.. Lemme look into that.

In test-ww_mutex, the stress will use 4096 locks to do the test, and
given held_lock::references only have 12 bits, so I think this is the
reason? I made a patch to reduce the lock number of stress test, and it
seems the problem is resolved.

Thoughts?

Regards,
Boqun

-------------------->8
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:50:46 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust the lock number for stress test

Because there are only 12 bits in held_lock::references, so we only
support 4095 nested lock held in the same time, adjust the lock number
for ww_mutex stress test to kill one lockdep splat:

[   17.169056] =====================================
[   17.171014] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
[   17.172115] 4.10.0-10265-ge5d56ef #18 Not tainted
[   17.172115] -------------------------------------
[   17.172115] kworker/u2:0/5 is trying to release lock (ww_class_mutex) at:
[   17.172115] [<41575474>] ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
[   17.172115] but there are no more locks to release!
[   17.172115]
[   17.172115] other info that might help us debug this:
[   17.172115]
[   17.172115] other info that might help us debug this:
[   17.172115] 4 locks held by kworker/u2:0/5:
[   17.172115]  #0:  ("test-ww_mutex"){......}, at: [<41041def>] process_one_work+0x168/0x33a
[   17.172115]  #1:  ((&stress->work)){......}, at: [<41041def>] process_one_work+0x168/0x33a
[   17.172115]  #2:  (ww_class_acquire){......}, at: [<41041e47>] process_one_work+0x1c0/0x33a
[   17.172115]  #3:  (ww_class_mutex){......}, at: [<41057d98>] stress_inorder_work+0xbf/0x218
[   17.172115]
[   17.172115] stack backtrace:
[   17.172115]
[   17.172115] stack backtrace:
[   17.172115] CPU: 0 PID: 5 Comm: kworker/u2:0 Not tainted 4.10.0-10265-ge5d56ef #18
[   17.172115] Workqueue: test-ww_mutex stress_inorder_work
[   17.172115] Call Trace:
[   17.172115]  dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[   17.172115]  print_unlock_imbalance_bug+0xb4/0xc1
[   17.172115]  ? ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
[   17.172115]  lock_release+0x28d/0x2bb
[   17.172115]  ? ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
[   17.172115]  __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x2d/0x1db
[   17.172115]  ? schedule_hrtimeout_range+0xd/0xf
[   17.172115]  mutex_unlock+0xb/0xd
[   17.172115]  ww_mutex_unlock+0x66/0x72
[   17.172115]  stress_inorder_work+0x10a/0x218
[   17.172115]  process_one_work+0x1c0/0x33a
[   17.172115]  ? process_one_work+0x168/0x33a
[   17.172115]  worker_thread+0x22f/0x315
[   17.172115]  kthread+0xed/0xf2
[   17.172115]  ? process_scheduled_works+0x24/0x24
[   17.172115]  ? __kthread_create_on_node+0x11f/0x11f
[   17.172115]  ret_from_fork+0x21/0x30

Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
---
 kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
index da6c9a34f62f..9155561cca7b 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ret = stress(4096, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, 1<<12, STRESS_ALL);
+	ret = stress(4095, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, 1<<12, STRESS_ALL);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-- 
2.11.0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ