All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	nauman@google.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:42:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100423194255.GE2589@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <h2xa44ae5cd1004230550uf734c89eo2b1d1945d446068c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:50:59AM -0400, Miles Lane wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> There has been a bit of back and forth, and I am not sure what patches
> I should test now.
> Could you send me a bundle of whatever needs testing now?

Hello, Miles,

I am posting my set as replies to this message.  There are a couple
of KVM fixes that are going up via Avi's tree, and a number of networking
fixes that are going up via Dave Miller's tree -- a number of these
are against quickly changing code, so it didn't make sense for me to
keep them separately.

I believe that the two splats below are addressed by this patch set
carried in the networking tree:

	https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/90754/

							Thanx, Paul

> I currently have a build of 2.6.34-rc5-git3 with the same patch I
> tested before applied.
> I notice a few minor differences in the warnings given.  I suspect
> these do not indicate
> new issues, since the trace from <IRQ> through <EOI> is the same as before.
> 
> [   60.174809] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> [   60.174812] ---------------------------------------------------
> [   60.174816] net/mac80211/sta_info.c:886 invoked
> rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> [   60.174820]
> [   60.174821] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   60.174822]
> [   60.174825]
> [   60.174826] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> [   60.174829] no locks held by wpa_supplicant/3973.
> [   60.174832]
> [   60.174833] stack backtrace:
> [   60.174838] Pid: 3973, comm: wpa_supplicant Not tainted 2.6.34-rc5-git3 #19
> [   60.174841] Call Trace:
> [   60.174844]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81067faa>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa5
> [   60.174873]  [<ffffffffa014e9ae>]
> ieee80211_find_sta_by_hw+0x46/0x10f [mac80211]
> [   60.174886]  [<ffffffffa014ea8e>] ieee80211_find_sta+0x17/0x19 [mac80211]
> [   60.174902]  [<ffffffffa01a60f2>] iwl_tx_queue_reclaim+0xdb/0x1b1 [iwlcore]
> [   60.174909]  [<ffffffff81068417>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x235
> [   60.174920]  [<ffffffffa01d5f1c>] iwl5000_rx_reply_tx+0x4a9/0x556 [iwlagn]
> [   60.174927]  [<ffffffff8120a2d3>] ? is_swiotlb_buffer+0x2e/0x3b
> [   60.174936]  [<ffffffffa01cebf4>] iwl_rx_handle+0x163/0x2b5 [iwlagn]
> [   60.174943]  [<ffffffff810688f0>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfa/0x13f
> [   60.174952]  [<ffffffffa01cf3ac>] iwl_irq_tasklet+0x2bb/0x3c0 [iwlagn]
> [   60.174959]  [<ffffffff810411df>] tasklet_action+0xa7/0x10f
> [   60.174965]  [<ffffffff810421f1>] __do_softirq+0x144/0x252
> [   60.174972]  [<ffffffff81003a8c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x34
> [   60.174977]  [<ffffffff810050e4>] do_softirq+0x38/0x80
> [   60.174982]  [<ffffffff81041cbe>] irq_exit+0x45/0x94
> [   60.174987]  [<ffffffff81004829>] do_IRQ+0xad/0xc4
> [   60.174994]  [<ffffffff813cfb13>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
> [   60.174997]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff810e5114>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xa9/0x15f
> [   60.175010]  [<ffffffff81342182>] ? __alloc_skb+0x3d/0x155
> [   60.175016]  [<ffffffff81342182>] __alloc_skb+0x3d/0x155
> [   60.175023]  [<ffffffff8133d237>] sock_alloc_send_pskb+0xc0/0x2e5
> [   60.175030]  [<ffffffff8133d46c>] sock_alloc_send_skb+0x10/0x12
> [   60.175036]  [<ffffffff813b1ab5>] unix_stream_sendmsg+0x117/0x2e2
> [   60.175044]  [<ffffffff811bdca8>] ? avc_has_perm+0x57/0x69
> [   60.175050]  [<ffffffff8133b892>] ? sock_aio_write+0x0/0xcf
> [   60.175056]  [<ffffffff813392c2>] __sock_sendmsg+0x59/0x64
> [   60.175062]  [<ffffffff8133b94d>] sock_aio_write+0xbb/0xcf
> [   60.175069]  [<ffffffff810e98b1>] do_sync_readv_writev+0xbc/0xfb
> [   60.175077]  [<ffffffff811c1726>] ? selinux_file_permission+0xa2/0xaf
> [   60.175082]  [<ffffffff810e9638>] ? copy_from_user+0x2a/0x2c
> [   60.175089]  [<ffffffff811baf85>] ? security_file_permission+0x11/0x13
> [   60.175095]  [<ffffffff810ea64e>] do_readv_writev+0xa2/0x122
> [   60.175101]  [<ffffffff810ead3b>] ? fcheck_files+0x8f/0xc9
> [   60.175107]  [<ffffffff810ea70c>] vfs_writev+0x3e/0x49
> [   60.175113]  [<ffffffff810ea7f2>] sys_writev+0x45/0x8e
> [   60.175119]  [<ffffffff81002b6b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> 
> [   60.223213] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> [   60.223216] ---------------------------------------------------
> [   60.223221] net/mac80211/sta_info.c:886 invoked
> rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> [   60.223224]
> [   60.223225] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   60.223227]
> [   60.223230]
> [   60.223230] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> [   60.223234] no locks held by udisks-daemon/4398.
> [   60.223236]
> [   60.223237] stack backtrace:
> [   60.223242] Pid: 4398, comm: udisks-daemon Not tainted 2.6.34-rc5-git3 #19
> [   60.223245] Call Trace:
> [   60.223249]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81067faa>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9d/0xa5
> [   60.223275]  [<ffffffffa014e9fe>]
> ieee80211_find_sta_by_hw+0x96/0x10f [mac80211]
> [   60.223288]  [<ffffffffa014ea8e>] ieee80211_find_sta+0x17/0x19 [mac80211]
> [   60.223304]  [<ffffffffa01a60f2>] iwl_tx_queue_reclaim+0xdb/0x1b1 [iwlcore]
> [   60.223310]  [<ffffffff81068417>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x235
> [   60.223321]  [<ffffffffa01d5f1c>] iwl5000_rx_reply_tx+0x4a9/0x556 [iwlagn]
> [   60.223329]  [<ffffffff8120a2d3>] ? is_swiotlb_buffer+0x2e/0x3b
> [   60.223338]  [<ffffffffa01cebf4>] iwl_rx_handle+0x163/0x2b5 [iwlagn]
> [   60.223344]  [<ffffffff810688f0>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfa/0x13f
> [   60.223353]  [<ffffffffa01cf3ac>] iwl_irq_tasklet+0x2bb/0x3c0 [iwlagn]
> [   60.223360]  [<ffffffff810411df>] tasklet_action+0xa7/0x10f
> [   60.223367]  [<ffffffff810421f1>] __do_softirq+0x144/0x252
> [   60.223374]  [<ffffffff81003a8c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x34
> [   60.223379]  [<ffffffff810050e4>] do_softirq+0x38/0x80
> [   60.223384]  [<ffffffff81041cbe>] irq_exit+0x45/0x94
> [   60.223389]  [<ffffffff81004829>] do_IRQ+0xad/0xc4
> [   60.223396]  [<ffffffff813cfb13>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
> [   60.223399]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff810e34f1>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xb0/0x134
> [   60.223412]  [<ffffffff810f391a>] ? putname+0x2d/0x36
> [   60.223417]  [<ffffffff810f391a>] putname+0x2d/0x36
> [   60.223423]  [<ffffffff810f5536>] user_path_at+0x5f/0x8e
> [   60.223429]  [<ffffffff81068671>] ? mark_held_locks+0x52/0x70
> [   60.223435]  [<ffffffff810e34ee>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xad/0x134
> [   60.223441]  [<ffffffff8106890a>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x114/0x13f
> [   60.223447]  [<ffffffff81068942>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
> [   60.223454]  [<ffffffff810ed93f>] vfs_fstatat+0x32/0x5d
> [   60.223460]  [<ffffffff810ed9bb>] vfs_lstat+0x19/0x1b
> [   60.223465]  [<ffffffff810ed9d7>] sys_newlstat+0x1a/0x38
> [   60.223471]  [<ffffffff8106890a>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x114/0x13f
> [   60.223477]  [<ffffffff813cec00>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [   60.223485]  [<ffffffff81002b6b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-23 19:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-08  1:26 INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage - include/linux/cgroup.h:492 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Miles Lane
2010-03-11  3:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-12 18:44   ` Eric Paris
2010-04-12 18:47     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 10:47       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-15 15:47         ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-19  3:45           ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-04-19 18:26         ` Eric Paris
2010-04-19 23:01           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-20  1:25             ` Eric Paris
2010-04-20  3:04               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-20  7:21                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-20  8:23                 ` [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage Lai Jiangshan
2010-04-20  8:36                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-20 12:31                   ` Eric Paris
2010-04-20 13:28                     ` Paul E. McKenney
     [not found]                     ` <j2ya44ae5cd1004200545q6be4ec82o18ae99d93e8c29c7@mail.gmail.com>
2010-04-20 13:52                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-20 15:38                         ` Miles Lane
2010-04-21  6:04                           ` Borislav Petkov
2010-04-21 21:45                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-21 21:35                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-21 21:48                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-21 21:57                             ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-21 22:14                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-21 23:26                                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-04-22 14:56                             ` Vivek Goyal
2010-04-22 16:01                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 12:50                                 ` Miles Lane
2010-04-23 19:42                                   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 01/12] rcu: Fix RCU lockdep splat in set_task_cpu on fork path Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 02/12] rcu: fix RCU lockdep splat on freezer_fork path Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 03/12] rcu: leave lockdep enabled after RCU lockdep splat Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 04/12] NFSv4: Fix the locking in nfs_inode_reclaim_delegation() Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 05/12] NFS: Fix RCU issues in the NFSv4 delegation code Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 06/12] KEYS: Fix an RCU warning Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 07/12] KEYS: Fix an RCU warning in the reading of user keys Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 08/12] cgroup: Fix an RCU warning in cgroup_path() Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 09/12] cgroup: Fix an RCU warning in alloc_css_id() Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 10/12] sched: Fix an RCU warning in print_task() Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 11/12] cgroup: Check task_lock in task_subsys_state() Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:43                                     ` [PATCH v2.6.34-rc5 12/12] memcg: css_id() must be called under rcu_read_lock() Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 22:59                                     ` [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage Miles Lane
2010-04-24  5:35                                       ` Miles Lane
2010-04-25  2:36                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-25  2:34                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-25  7:45                                         ` Johannes Berg
2010-04-25  7:49                                           ` David Miller
2010-04-26  2:07                                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-25 15:49                                         ` Miles Lane
2010-04-25 20:20                                           ` Miles Lane
2010-04-26 16:09                                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-26 18:35                                               ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-04-27  4:27                                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-27 16:22                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-27 16:33                                                     ` Eric Dumazet
2010-04-27 17:58                                                     ` Miles Lane
2010-04-27 23:31                                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-27 23:42                                                         ` David Miller
2010-04-27 23:52                                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
     [not found]                                         ` <p2ka44ae5cd1004281358n86ce29d2tbece16b2fb974dab@mail.gmail.com>
2010-04-28 21:37                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-05-01 17:26                         ` Miles Lane
2010-05-01 21:55                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-05-02  2:00                             ` Miles Lane
2010-05-02  4:11                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-21  1:05             ` INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage - include/linux/cgroup.h:492 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Li Zefan
2010-04-21  3:14               ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-14 16:03     ` Paul E. McKenney
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-06-01 13:06 [PATCH] RCU: don't turn off lockdep when find suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage Daniel J Blueman
2010-06-02 14:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-02 15:24   ` Daniel J Blueman
2010-06-03  9:22   ` Li Zefan
2010-06-03 18:30     ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-04  2:44       ` Li Zefan
2010-06-04  4:10         ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-06-04  8:54           ` Daniel J Blueman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100423194255.GE2589@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=miles.lane@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nauman@google.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.