netdev - Re: Kernel NFS boot failure

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: <57A1DE28.7020604@arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:06:00 +0100
From:	Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>
To:	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel NFS boot failure

Hi,

On 03/08/16 12:41, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> We observe Kernel boot failure while running NFS boot stress test (1000 iterations):
> - Linux version 4.7.0 
> - am335x-evm (TI AM335x EVM)
> - failure rate 10-20 times per test.
> Originally this issue was reproduced using TI Kernel 4.4
> ( git://git.ti.com/ti-linux-kernel/ti-linux-kernel.git, branch: ti-linux-4.4.y)
> on both am335x-evm and am57xx-beagle-x15(am57xx-evm) platforms.
> This issues has not been reproduced with TI Kernel 4.1 before.
> 
> The SysRq shows that system stuck in nfs_fs_mount()
> 
> [  207.904632] [<c07ab34c>] (schedule) from [<c0783554>] (rpc_wait_bit_killable+0x2c/0xd8)
> [  207.912996] [<c0783554>] (rpc_wait_bit_killable) from [<c07ab7f0>] (__wait_on_bit+0x84/0xc0)
> [  207.921812] [<c07ab7f0>] (__wait_on_bit) from [<c07ab890>] (out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x64/0x70)
> [  207.930810] [<c07ab890>] (out_of_line_wait_on_bit) from [<c07843f4>] (__rpc_execute+0x18c/0x544)
> [  207.939988] [<c07843f4>] (__rpc_execute) from [<c0779f24>] (rpc_run_task+0x13c/0x158)
> [  207.948166] [<c0779f24>] (rpc_run_task) from [<c0779f84>] (rpc_call_sync+0x44/0xc4)
> [  207.956163] [<c0779f84>] (rpc_call_sync) from [<c077a04c>] (rpc_ping+0x48/0x68)
> [  207.963796] [<c077a04c>] (rpc_ping) from [<c077a158>] (rpc_create_xprt+0xec/0x164)
> [  207.971702] [<c077a158>] (rpc_create_xprt) from [<c077a2c0>] (rpc_create+0xf0/0x1a0)
> [  207.979794] [<c077a2c0>] (rpc_create) from [<c0393088>] (nfs_create_rpc_client+0xd4/0xec)
> [  207.988338] [<c0393088>] (nfs_create_rpc_client) from [<c0394d10>] (nfs_init_client+0x20/0x78)
> [  207.997332] [<c0394d10>] (nfs_init_client) from [<c03949d4>] (nfs_create_server+0xa0/0x3bc)
> [  208.006057] [<c03949d4>] (nfs_create_server) from [<c03b197c>] (nfs3_create_server+0x8/0x20)
> [  208.014879] [<c03b197c>] (nfs3_create_server) from [<c03a34c4>] (nfs_try_mount+0xc4/0x1f0)
> [  208.023513] [<c03a34c4>] (nfs_try_mount) from [<c03a2c48>] (nfs_fs_mount+0x290/0x910)
> [  208.031702] [<c03a2c48>] (nfs_fs_mount) from [<c0294d24>] (mount_fs+0x44/0x168)
> 
> Has anyone else seen this issue?
> 
> I'd be appreciated for any help or advice related to this issue?

I did not look at details, but because it is 4.4 and __wait_on_bit
showed up you might want to look at [1]

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/20/472

Just my 2p.
Vladimir

> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> regards,
> -grygorii