Message-ID: <2760c168-974b-41da-9f1c-171a07bb60fb@roeck-us.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:34:07 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org,
 patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de,
 jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
 srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
 allen.lkml@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
 linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
 "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/217] 6.1.95-rc1 review [parisc64/C3700 boot
 failures]

On 6/22/24 08:13, Helge Deller wrote:
> On 6/22/24 16:58, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> [ Copying parisc maintainers - maybe they can test on real hardware ]
>>
>> On 6/19/24 05:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.95 release.
>>> There are 217 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>> let me know.
>>>
>>> Responses should be made by Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:55:11 +0000.
>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>
>> ...
>>> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>>>      zap_pid_ns_processes: clear TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL along with TIF_SIGPENDING
>>>
>>
>> I can not explain it, but this patch causes all my parisc64 (C3700)
>> boot tests to crash. There are lots of memory corruption BUGs such as
>>
>> [    0.000000] =============================================================================
>> [    0.000000] BUG kmalloc-96 (Not tainted): Padding overwritten. 0x0000000043411dd0-0x0000000043411f5f @offset=3536
>>
>> ultimately followed by
>>
>> [    0.462562] Unaligned handler failed, ret = -14
>> ...
>> [    0.469160]  IAOQ[0]: idr_alloc_cyclic+0x48/0x118
>> [    0.469372]  IAOQ[1]: idr_alloc_cyclic+0x54/0x118
>> [    0.469548]  RP(r2): __kernfs_new_node.constprop.0+0x160/0x420
>> [    0.469782] Backtrace:
>> [    0.469928]  [<00000000404af108>] __kernfs_new_node.constprop.0+0x160/0x420
>> [    0.470285]  [<00000000404b0cac>] kernfs_new_node+0xbc/0x118
>> [    0.470523]  [<00000000404b158c>] kernfs_create_empty_dir+0x54/0xf0
>> [    0.470756]  [<00000000404b665c>] sysfs_create_mount_point+0x4c/0xb0
>> [    0.470996]  [<00000000401181cc>] cgroup_init+0x5b4/0x738
>> [    0.471213]  [<0000000040102220>] start_kernel+0x1238/0x1308
>> [    0.471429]  [<0000000040107c90>] start_parisc+0x188/0x1d0
>> ...
>> [    0.474956] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task!
>> SeaBIOS wants SYSTEM RESET.
>>
>> This is with qemu v9.0.1.
> 
> Just to be sure, did you tested the same kernel on physical hardware as well?
> 

No, I don't have hardware. I only have qemu. That is why I copied you and
the parisc mailing list. I would hope that someone can either confirm that
this is a real problem or that it is qemu related. If it is qemu related,
I'll just stop testing c3700 64-bit support with qemu on v6.1.y and other
branches if/when the problem shows up there as well.

> Please note, that 64-bit hppa (C3700) support in qemu was just recently added
> and is still considered experimental.
> So, maybe it's not a bug in the source, but in qemu...?!?
> 

Sure, that is possible, though it is a bit unusual that it is only seen
in 6.1.95 and not in any other branches or releases.

In summary, please see this report as "This is a problem seen in qemu.
It may or may not be seen on real hardware". Maybe I should add this as a
common disclaimer to all my reports to avoid misunderstandings.

Thanks,
Guenter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists