[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHj4cs-6M+fORJOGOxH3sO5BytBwi4y9hcnS+xQ3wLZO20UXWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 18:20:41 +0800
From: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@...hat.com>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, mark.rutland@....com,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Changhui Zhong <czhong@...hat.com>,
yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>,
"zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
chengzhihao <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [czhong@...hat.com: [bug report] WARNING: CPU: 121 PID: 93233 at
fs/dcache.c:365 __dentry_kill+0x214/0x278]
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:10 AM Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023/9/17 17:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 02:55:47PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
> >> On 2023/9/13 16:59, Yi Zhang wrote:
> >>> The issue still can be reproduced on the latest linux tree[2].
> >>> To reproduce I need to run about 1000 times blktests block/001, and
> >>> bisect shows it was introduced with commit[1], as it was not 100%
> >>> reproduced, not sure if it's the culprit?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] 9257959a6e5b locking/atomic: scripts: restructure fallback ifdeffery
> >> Hello, everyone!
> >>
> >> We have confirmed that the merge-in of this patch caused hlist_bl_lock
> >> (aka, bit_spin_lock) to fail, which in turn triggered the issue above.
> >> [root@...alhost ~]# insmod mymod.ko
> >> [ 37.994787][ T621] >>> a = 725, b = 724
> >> [ 37.995313][ T621] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ 37.995951][ T621] kernel BUG at fs/mymod/mymod.c:42!
> >> [r[ oo 3t7@...96o4c61al]h[o s T6t21] ~ ]#Int ernal error: Oops - BUG:
> >> 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP
> >> [ 37.997420][ T621] Modules linked in: mymod(E)
> >> [ 37.997891][ T621] CPU: 9 PID: 621 Comm: bl_lock_thread2 Tainted:
> >> G E 6.4.0-rc2-00034-g9257959a6e5b-dirty #117
> >> [ 37.999038][ T621] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> >> [ 37.999571][ T621] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS
> >> BTYPE=--)
> >> [ 38.000344][ T621] pc : increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod]
> >> [ 38.000882][ T621] lr : increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod]
> >> [ 38.001416][ T621] sp : ffff800008b4be40
> >> [ 38.001822][ T621] x29: ffff800008b4be40 x28: 0000000000000000 x27:
> >> 0000000000000000
> >> [ 38.002605][ T621] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000000 x24:
> >> 0000000000000000
> >> [ 38.003385][ T621] x23: ffffd9930c698190 x22: ffff800008a0ba38 x21:
> >> 0000000000000001
> >> [ 38.004174][ T621] x20: ffffffffffffefff x19: ffffd9930c69a580 x18:
> >> 0000000000000000
> >> [ 38.004955][ T621] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: ffffd9933011bd38 x15:
> >> ffffffffffffffff
> >> [ 38.005754][ T621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 205d313236542020 x12:
> >> ffffd99332175b80
> >> [ 38.006538][ T621] x11: 0000000000000003 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 :
> >> ffffd9933022a9d8
> >> [ 38.007325][ T621] x8 : 00000000000bffe8 x7 : c0000000ffff7fff x6 :
> >> ffffd993320b5b40
> >> [ 38.008124][ T621] x5 : ffff0001f7d1c708 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 :
> >> 0000000000000000
> >> [ 38.008912][ T621] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 :
> >> 0000000000000015
> >> [ 38.009709][ T621] Call trace:
> >> [ 38.010035][ T621] increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod]
> >> [ 38.010539][ T621] kthread+0xdc/0xf0
> >> [ 38.010927][ T621] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >> [ 38.011370][ T621] Code: 17ffffe0 90000020 91044000 9400000d (d4210000)
> >> [ 38.012067][ T621] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> > Is this arm64 or something? You seem to have forgotten to mention what
> > platform you're using.
> >
> Sorry for the late reply.
> We tested both x86 and arm64, and the problem is only encountered under
> arm64.
Yeah, my reproduced environment is also aarch64.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Baokun Li
> .
>
--
Best Regards,
Yi Zhang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists