From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: 3.4.4-rt13: btrfs + xfstests 006 = BOOM.. and a bonus rt_mutex deadlock report for absolutely free! Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:37:50 +0200 Message-ID: <1342100270.7707.20.camel@marge.simpson.net> References: <1342072060.7338.102.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1342082648.7338.171.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1342086792.7707.9.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1342094233.7707.12.camel@marge.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , linux-fsdevel , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra To: Thomas Gleixner Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 15:31 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 13:43 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > rawlock points to ...968 and the node_list to ...970. > > > > > > struct rt_mutex { > > > raw_spinlock_t wait_lock; > > > struct plist_head wait_list; > > > > > > The raw_lock pointer of the plist_head is initialized in > > > __rt_mutex_init() so it points to wait_lock. > > > > > > Can you check the offset of wait_list vs. the rt_mutex itself? > > > > > > I wouldn't be surprised if it's exactly 8 bytes. And then this thing > > > looks like a copied lock with stale pointers to hell. Eew. > > > > crash> struct rt_mutex -o > > struct rt_mutex { > > [0] raw_spinlock_t wait_lock; > > [8] struct plist_head wait_list; > > Bingo, that makes it more likely that this is caused by copying w/o > initializing the lock and then freeing the original structure. > > A quick check for memcpy finds that __btrfs_close_devices() does a > memcpy of btrfs_device structs w/o initializing the lock in the new > copy, but I have no idea whether that's the place we are looking for. Cool, you found one, thanks! I'm setting boobytraps. Um, correction, box says I'm setting _buggy_ boobytraps :) Tomorrow-man will test this and frob traps anew. > > Thanks, > > tglx > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index 43baaf0..06c8ced 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -512,6 +512,7 @@ static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices) > new_device->writeable = 0; > new_device->in_fs_metadata = 0; > new_device->can_discard = 0; > + spin_lock_init(&new_device->io_lock); > list_replace_rcu(&device->dev_list, &new_device->dev_list); > > call_rcu(&device->rcu, free_device); > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/