[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4cba7088-f7c8-edcf-02cd-396eb2a56b46@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:56:33 +0800
From: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"open list:X86 MM" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)"
<bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix panic by disable ftrace on fault.c
On 2021/9/15 上午12:16, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/14/21 12:23 AM, 王贇 wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/9/14 上午11:02, 王贇 wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> [ 44.133509][ C0] traps: PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0
>>> [ 44.133519][ C0] double fault: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
>>> [ 44.133526][ C0] CPU: 0 PID: 743 Comm: a.out Not tainted 5.14.0-next-20210913 #469
>>> [ 44.133532][ C0] Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011
>>> [ 44.133536][ C0] RIP: 0010:perf_swevent_get_recursion_context+0x0/0x70
>>> [ 44.133549][ C0] Code: 48 03 43 28 48 8b 0c 24 bb 01 00 00 00 4c 29 f0 48 39 c8 48 0f 47 c1 49 89 45 08 e9 48 ff ff ff 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 <55> 53 e8 09 20 f2 ff 48 c7 c2 20 4d 03 00 65 48 03 15 5a 3b d2 7e
>>> [ 44.133556][ C0] RSP: 0018:fffffe000000b000 EFLAGS: 00010046
>> Another information is that I have printed '__this_cpu_ist_bottom_va(NMI)'
>> on cpu0, which is just the RSP fffffe000000b000, does this imply
>> we got an overflowed NMI stack?
>
> Yep. I have the feeling some of your sanitizer and other debugging is
> eating the stack:
Could be, in another thread we have confirmed the exception stack was
overflowed.
>
>> [ 44.134987][ C0] ? __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc+0x7/0x60
>> [ 44.135005][ C0] ? kcov_common_handle+0x30/0x30
>
> Just turning off tracing for the page fault handler is papering over the
> problem. It'll just come back later with a slightly different form.
>
Cool~ please let me know when you have the proper approach.
Regards,
Michael Wang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists