[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJ34qOSiy7RFzqML-hSS5beniQCcKqP3nOERXKxt0RB1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:59:19 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 06/14] netlink: hold nlk->cb_mutex longer in __netlink_dump_start()
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 10:29 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> On 2024/06/09 17:17, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > While investigating hung task reports involving rtnl_mutex, I came to
> > suspect that commit b5590270068c ("netlink: hold nlk->cb_mutex longer
> > in __netlink_dump_start()") is buggy, for that commit made only
> > mutex_lock(nlk->cb_mutex) side conditionally. Why don't we need to make
> > mutex_unlock(nlk->cb_mutex) side conditionally?
> >
>
> Sorry for the noise. That commit should be correct, for the caller
> no longer calls mutex_unlock(nlk->cb_mutex).
>
> I'll try a debug printk() patch for linux-next.
I also have a lot of hung task reports as well, but in most reports
the console is flooded
before the crashes.
[ 276.515597][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.522774][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.529566][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: unexpected response 0
[ 276.535875][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.543011][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.549951][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: unexpected response 0
[ 276.556111][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.563143][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.570382][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: unexpected response 0
[ 276.576399][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.584381][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.591617][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: unexpected response 0
[ 276.597904][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.605126][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.612153][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: unexpected response 0
[ 276.618588][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.626153][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.631595][ T30] INFO: task dhcpcd:4749 blocked for more than 143 seconds.
[ 276.633015][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: unexpected response 0
[ 276.646813][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_ctl_callback - urb status -71
[ 276.654401][ T30] Not tainted
6.10.0-rc2-syzkaller-00269-g96e09b8f8166 #0
2024/06/08 02:48:35 SYZFATAL: failed to recv *flatrpc.HostMessageRaw: EOF
[ 276.654461][ C1] yealink 4-1:36.0: urb_irq_callback - urb status -71
I wonder how to deal with SYZFATAL, maybe the reports are truncated and we
do not see who owns rtnl mutex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists