linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] MIPS: smp: Sleeping func called from start

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: <8d875eb0-d236-46f3-a417-08bff3c0087d@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 17:43:45 +0800
From: "Jiaxun Yang" <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
To: "Serge Semin" <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
 "Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
 "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, "Kelvin Cheung" <keguang.zhang@...il.com>,
 "Gregory CLEMENT" <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
 Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@...tlin.com>,
 "Vladimir Kondratiev" <vladimir.kondratiev@...ileye.com>,
 "Tawfik Bayouk" <tawfik.bayouk@...ileye.com>,
 "Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
 "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] MIPS: smp: Sleeping func called from start_secondary()



在2024年8月2日八月 下午4:45，Serge Semin写道：
> Hi folks,
>
> To debug some another problem I recently enabled the
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP config for my SoC based on the 2xP5600 cores
> with MIPS GIC as IRQ-controller. That caused the next BUG backtrace
> started being printed to the system log during the device boot-up:

Hi Serge,

Thanks for reporting the problem!

I actually have a patch lying around somewhere to convert cevt-r4k to use CPUHP
interface and avoid requesting interrupt on secondary CPUs.

Will post after getting more platform tests.

Thanks
- Jiaxun

>
> [    0.118053] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
> kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
> [    0.118062] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 
> 0, name: swapper/1
> [    0.118069] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
> [    0.118074] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
> [    0.118078] Preemption disabled at:
> [    0.118082] [<80105040>] arch_dup_task_struct+0x20/0x118
> [    0.118116] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 
> 6.11.0-rc1-bt1-00312-gca6f9469050c-dirty #2460
> [    0.118134] Stack : 816d0000 801b89bc 81870000 00000004 a02d0c08 
> 00000000 84ae7dcc 801b84c0
> [    0.118167]         00000000 00000002 00000000 00000000 00000000 
> 00000001 84ae7d70 84aaf200
> [    0.118195]         00000000 00000000 81115acc 00000000 00000059 
> 84ae7bec 00000000 00000000
> [    0.118222]         00000000 ffffffff ffffffea 00000020 816d0000 
> 00000000 81115acc 00000002
> [    0.118250]         00000000 04240021 a02d0c08 00000000 00000000 
> 00000000 30400000 ac24242a
> [    0.118277]         ...
> [    0.118286] Call Trace:
> [    0.118289] [<8010af2c>] show_stack+0x88/0x120
> [    0.118309] [<80f09dfc>] dump_stack_lvl+0x78/0xb0
> [    0.118323] [<801778d0>] __might_resched+0x190/0x1f0
> [    0.118349] [<80f10f80>] mutex_lock+0x20/0x74
> [    0.118365] [<801c8590>] irq_create_mapping_affinity+0x48/0x104
> [    0.118390] [<801121ec>] r4k_clockevent_init+0x58/0x38c
> [    0.118402] [<80116658>] start_secondary+0x34/0x134
> [    0.118411] [<80f0b1e4>] smp_bootstrap+0x68/0x98
> [    0.118424] 
>
> I managed to investigate the problem a bit and the reason turned out to be
> in the irq_create_mapping() method eventually invoked in the framework of the
> secondary CPU start-up procedure. The more detailed calls chain is:
> start_secondary()
> +-> mips_clockevent_init()
>     +-> r4k_clockevent_init()
>         +-> get_c0_compare_int()
>             +-> gic_get_c0_compare_int()
>                 +-> irq_create_mapping()
>                     +-> irq_create_mapping_affinity()
>                         +-> mutex_lock()
>                             +-> might_sleep()
>                                 +-> might_resched()
>                                     +-> __might_resched()
>                                         +-> Print the log above
>
> I currently lack of free time for further investigation in an attempt to
> find a reasonable solution. So here is just a report and a short summary
> of the problem. Should you have any idea of how to fix the problem I'll be
> very glad to test it out on a short notice.
>
> -Serge(y)

-- 
- Jiaxun