linux-kernel - Re: 5.1.0-rc4: Oops in __rpc_execute() when trying to boot from NFS

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <78dbd13a-9a91-9a67-eaa6-ea7f0190898b@zonque.org>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 19:54:15 +0200
From:   Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
        "bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.1.0-rc4: Oops in __rpc_execute() when trying to boot from NFS

On 9/4/2019 6:55 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-04-09 at 18:25 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 8/4/2019 8:51 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 19:01 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm seeing the Oops below when trying to boot 5.1.0-rc4 on an ARM
>>>> PXA3xx
>>>> platform. v5.0 did not show this effect with the same cmdline.
>>>>
>>> Please do bisect if that is at all practical. I'm having trouble
>>> interpreting this Oops.
>>
>> Here you go:
>>
>> 009a82f6437490c262584d65a14094a818bcb747 is the first bad commit
>> commit 009a82f6437490c262584d65a14094a818bcb747
>> Author: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>
>> Date:   Sat Mar 9 12:07:17 2019 -0500
>>
>>     SUNRPC: Micro-optimise when the task is known not to be sleeping
>>
>>     In cases where we know the task is not sleeping, try to optimise
>>     away the indirect call to task->tk_action() by replacing it with
>>     a direct call.
>>     Only change tail calls, to allow gcc to perform tail call
>>     elimination.
> 
> Ah... It looks like we explicitly turn off tail call optimisation in
> some ARM configs, so this might be a stack overflow.
> 
> Does your config file have THUMB2_AVOID_R_ARM_THM_JUMP11 set?

Nope. I don't even have THUMB2_KERNEL.

In the meantime, I tried to trace that with some printks, but the bug
appears evasive, and the backtrace changes as soon as I modify the
timing. Hmm.

Happy to test patches if you have any idea.


Thanks,
Daniel