| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <013e32f0915219421a2db666994a7e11fa2e04c3.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 08:17:59 +0100
From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unexpected lockdep selftest failures
On Tue, 2024-11-26 at 14:23 -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 12:18:40PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With the for-next branch of this tree: git://git.kernel.dk/linux-
> > block
> > (commit 12ab2c13ca77 ("Merge branch 'for-6.13/block' into for-
> > next")) I
> > see the following:
> >
> >
> > [ 0.887603][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.888763][ T0] | Wound/wait tests |
> > [ 0.889310][ T0] ---------------------
> > [ 0.889867][ T0] ww api failures: ok
> > |FAILED| ok
> > >
> > [ 0.892597][ T0] ww contexts mixing: ok |
> > ok |
> > [ 0.894638][ T0] finishing ww context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.898020][ T0] locking mismatches: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > >
> > [ 0.900689][ T0] EDEADLK handling: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
> > [ 0.908172][ T0] spinlock nest unlocked: ok |
> > [ 0.909484][ T0] spinlock nest test: ok |
> > [ 0.910902][ T0] --------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > [ 0.911824][ T0] |block |
> > try
> > > context|
> > [ 0.912970][ T0] --------------------------------------------
> > ---------
> > [ 0.913890][ T0] context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > >
> > [ 0.916613][ T0] try: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > >
> > [ 0.919235][ T0] block: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > >
> > [ 0.921852][ T0] spinlock: ok |
> > ok
> > > FAILED|
> > [ 0.924666][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.925852][ T0] | queued read lock tests |
> > [ 0.926506][ T0] ---------------------------
> > [ 0.927132][ T0] hardirq read-lock/lock-read: ok |
> > [ 0.928496][ T0] hardirq lock-read/read-lock: ok |
> > [ 0.929860][ T0] hardirq inversion: ok |
> > [ 0.931269][ T0] --------------------
> > [ 0.931827][ T0] | fs_reclaim tests |
> > [ 0.932383][ T0] --------------------
> > [ 0.932932][ T0] correct nesting: ok |
> > [ 0.934252][ T0] wrong nesting: ok |
> > [ 0.935518][ T0] protected nesting: ok |
> > [ 0.936784][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.937936][ T0] | wait context tests |
> > [ 0.938516][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.939661][ T0] | rcu |
> > raw | spin
> > > mutex |
> > [ 0.940646][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.941798][ T0] in hardirq context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.944946][ T0] in hardirq context (not threaded): ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.948072][ T0] in softirq context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.951206][ T0] in RCU context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.954345][ T0] in RCU-bh context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.957477][ T0] in RCU-sched context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.960612][ T0] in RAW_SPINLOCK context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.963927][ T0] in SPINLOCK context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.967252][ T0] in MUTEX context: ok |
> > ok | ok
> > > ok |
> > [ 0.970571][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.971702][ T0] | local_lock tests |
> > [ 0.972422][ T0] ---------------------
> > [ 0.972965][ T0] local_lock inversion 2: ok |
> > [ 0.974319][ T0] local_lock inversion 3A: ok |
> > [ 0.975708][ T0] local_lock inversion 3B: ok |
> > [ 0.977106][ T0] hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe: ok |
> > [ 0.978595][ T0]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------
> > [ 0.979723][ T0] | lockdep_set_subclass() name test|
> > [ 0.980424][ T0] -----------------------------------
> > [ 0.981123][ T0] compare name before and after: ok |
> > [ 0.982423][ T0]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 0.983434][ T0] BUG: 2 unexpected failures (out of 395) -
> > debugging
> > disabled! |
> > [ 0.984441][ T0]
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Is this a known issue?
> >
>
> Yes, these were reported at:
>
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Zw19sMtnKdyOVQoh@boqun-archlinux/
>
> and Thomas (Cced) send an updated version:
>
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241017151007.92215-1-thomas.hellstrom@
> linux.intel.com/
>
> , which wasn't picked up. :(
>
> Thomas, could you send a fix ontop? I'm happy to review and test it.
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
Yes, I'll do that.
For some reason the incorrect version was also queued for stable
backport. I replied to those backport patches and asked them not to be
backported, but has not seen any replies yet.
Thanks,
Thomas
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists