From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel deadlock in 6.7.5 + hacks, maybe debugfs related.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:46:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bb923801f7519c89b2b8f4300df1cb77ed2bb016.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <95d56b9a-4b91-476f-bab3-7af0f28ff469@candelatech.com>
On Mon, 2024-02-26 at 06:58 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> I managed to catch it in a lockdep enabled kernel. There were no lockdep
> warnings, but more lock info was printed at least:
>
> Maybe ordering of this one's lock printout means it is 'ip' that is actually holding the rtnl?
>
> [Seen in context further below]
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: 3 locks held by ip/28125:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #0: ffffffff82a6d588 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x13e/0x620
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #1: ffff888122e60768 (&rdev->wiphy.mtx){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ieee80211_stop+0x2d/0x180 [mac80211]
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #2: ffff88812661d768 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#3){++++}-{4:4}, at: simple_recursive_removal+0x189/0x2b0
Yes, probably.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: INFO: task kworker/6:3:542 blocked for more than 180 seconds.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Not tainted 6.7.5+ #1
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: task:kworker/6:3 state:D stack:0 pid:542 tgid:542 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Workqueue: ipv6_addrconf addrconf_verify_work
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Call Trace:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: <TASK>
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: __schedule+0x42c/0xde0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: schedule+0x3c/0x120
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: schedule_preempt_disabled+0xc/0x20
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: __mutex_lock+0x5c4/0xc00
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? lock_acquire+0xc6/0x2b0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? addrconf_verify_work+0x9/0x20
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? addrconf_verify_work+0x9/0x20
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: addrconf_verify_work+0x9/0x20
Lots of things like this are just blocked on RTNL.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: task:kworker/u16:1 state:D stack:0 pid:8298 tgid:8298 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Workqueue: events_unbound cfg80211_wiphy_work [cfg80211]
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Call Trace:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: <TASK>
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: __schedule+0x42c/0xde0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: schedule+0x3c/0x120
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: schedule_preempt_disabled+0xc/0x20
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: __mutex_lock+0x5c4/0xc00
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? cfg80211_wiphy_work+0x1a/0xc0 [cfg80211]
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? cfg80211_wiphy_work+0x1a/0xc0 [cfg80211]
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: cfg80211_wiphy_work+0x1a/0xc0 [cfg80211]
this is blocked on wiphy mutex.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: INFO: task ip:28125 blocked for more than 180 seconds.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Not tainted 6.7.5+ #1
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: task:ip state:D stack:0 pid:28125 tgid:28125 ppid:3604 flags:0x00004002
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: Call Trace:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: <TASK>
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: __schedule+0x42c/0xde0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: schedule+0x3c/0x120
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: schedule_timeout+0x19c/0x1b0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x70
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: __wait_for_common+0xba/0x1d0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? usleep_range_state+0xb0/0xb0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: remove_one+0x6b/0x100
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: simple_recursive_removal+0x20c/0x2b0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ? start_creating.part.0+0x170/0x170
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: debugfs_remove+0x3b/0x60
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: ieee80211_debugfs_recreate_netdev+0x30/0xac0 [mac80211]
This seems to be blocked on the wait_for_completion()?! Which means it
should have actually triggered the c->cancel() first, but ... if
wiphy_locked_debugfs_read_cancel() had actually been called, I'm not
sure why we'd be stuck here?
Then again, I'm looking at the code now and not sure why I put this
+ /* if we're already removing wake it up to cancel */
+ if (d_unlinked(dentry))
+ complete(&fsd->active_users_drained);
into debugfs_enter_cancellation()...
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel:
> Showing all locks held in the system:
This isn't always clear on holding vs. acquiring, FWIW.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: 3 locks held by kworker/6:3/542:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #0: ffff888109b33b38 ((wq_completion)ipv6_addrconf){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #1: ffffc90000f77e58 ((work_completion)(&(&net->ipv6.addr_chk_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #2: ffffffff82a6d588 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: addrconf_verify_work+0x9/0x20
See this, it's actually stuck on acquiring the RTNL.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: 3 locks held by kworker/u16:1/8298:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #0: ffff888108058d38 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #1: ffffc9000abcfe58 ((work_completion)(&rdev->wiphy_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x18f/0x4e0
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #2: ffff888122e60768 (&rdev->wiphy.mtx){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: cfg80211_wiphy_work+0x1a/0xc0 [cfg80211]
And this is stuck trying to acquire the wiphy mutex.
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: 3 locks held by ip/28125:
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #0: ffffffff82a6d588 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x13e/0x620
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #1: ffff888122e60768 (&rdev->wiphy.mtx){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: ieee80211_stop+0x2d/0x180 [mac80211]
> Feb 26 06:01:45 ct523c-0b0b kernel: #2: ffff88812661d768 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#3){++++}-{4:4}, at: simple_recursive_removal+0x189/0x2b0
This has them all.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-26 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-23 17:08 Kernel deadlock in 6.7.5 + hacks, maybe debugfs related Ben Greear
2024-02-26 8:42 ` Johannes Berg
2024-02-26 14:58 ` Ben Greear
2024-02-26 15:46 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2024-02-27 13:47 ` Johannes Berg
2024-02-27 13:51 ` Ben Greear
2024-02-27 14:29 ` Ben Greear
2024-02-27 14:32 ` Johannes Berg
2024-02-27 14:51 ` Ben Greear
2024-02-27 14:56 ` Johannes Berg
2024-02-27 14:58 ` Johannes Berg
2024-02-27 16:13 ` Johannes Berg
2024-02-27 17:25 ` Ben Greear
2024-02-29 4:05 ` Ben Greear
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=bb923801f7519c89b2b8f4300df1cb77ed2bb016.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox