From: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [3.10] Oopses in kmem_cache_allocate() via prepare_creds()
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:43:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130903204307.GB22714@hostway.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130819233138.GE23608@hostway.ca>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:31:38PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:24:41PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > Quoting Linus Torvalds (2013-08-19 17:16:36)
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Simon Kirby wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> [... ] The
> > > >> alloc/free traces are always the same -- always alloc_pipe_info and
> > > >> free_pipe_info. This is seen on 3.10 and (now) 3.11-rc4:
> > > >>
> > > >> Object ffff880090f19e78: 6b 6b 6b 6b 6c 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b kkkklkkkkkkkkkkk
> > > >
> > > > This looks like an increment after free in the second 32 bit value of the
> > > > structure. First 32 bit value's poison is unchanged.
> > >
> > > Ugh. If that is "struct pipe_inode_info" and I read it right, that's
> > > the "wait_lock" spinlock that is part of the mutex.
> > >
> > > Doing a "spin_lock()" could indeed cause an increment operation. But
> > > it still sounds like a very odd case. And even for some wild pointer
> > > I'd then expect the spin_unlock to also happen, and to then increment
> > > the next byte (or word) too. More importantly, for a mutex, I'd expect
> > > the *other* fields to be corrupted too (the "waiter" field etc). That
> > > is, unless we're still spinning waiting for the mutex, but with that
> > > value we shouldn't, as far as I can see.
> > >
> >
> > Simon, is this box doing btrfs send/receive? If so, it's probably where
> > this pipe is coming from.
>
> No, not for some time (a few kernel versions ago).
>
> > Linus' CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGE_ALLOC suggestions are going to be the fastest
> > way to find it, I can give you a patch if it'll help.
>
> I presume it's just:
>
> diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c
> index d2c45e1..30d5b8d 100644
> --- a/fs/pipe.c
> +++ b/fs/pipe.c
> @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ struct pipe_inode_info *alloc_pipe_info(void)
> {
> struct pipe_inode_info *pipe;
>
> - pipe = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pipe_inode_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> + pipe = (void *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> if (pipe) {
> pipe->bufs = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pipe_buffer) * PIPE_DEF_BUFFERS, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (pipe->bufs) {
> @@ -790,7 +790,7 @@ struct pipe_inode_info *alloc_pipe_info(void)
> mutex_init(&pipe->mutex);
> return pipe;
> }
> - kfree(pipe);
> + free_page((unsigned long)pipe);
> }
>
> return NULL;
> @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ void free_pipe_info(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> if (pipe->tmp_page)
> __free_page(pipe->tmp_page);
> kfree(pipe->bufs);
> - kfree(pipe);
> + free_page((unsigned long)pipe);
> }
>
> static struct vfsmount *pipe_mnt __read_mostly;
>
> ...and CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC enabled.
>
> > It would be nice if you could trigger this on plain 3.11-rcX instead of
> > btrfs-next.
>
> On 3.10 it was with some btrfs-next pulled in, but the 3.11-rc4 traces
> were from 3.11-rc4 with just some of our local patches:
>
> > git diff --stat v3.11-rc4..master
> firmware/Makefile | 4 +-
> firmware/bnx2/bnx2-mips-06-6.2.3.fw.ihex | 5804 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> firmware/bnx2/bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.fw.ihex | 6496 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/acct.c | 21 +-
> net/sunrpc/auth.c | 2 +-
> net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 10 +
> net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 8 +-
> 7 files changed, 12335 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> None of them look relevant, but I'm building vanilla -rc4 with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and the patch above.
Stock 3.11-rc4 plus the above get_zeroed_page() for pipe allocations has
been running since August 19th on a few btrfs boxes. It has been quiet
until a few days ago, where we hit this:
BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s! [btrfs-cleaner:5871]
Modules linked in: ipmi_devintf ipmi_si ipmi_msghandler aoe serio_raw bnx2 evdev
CPU: 5 PID: 5871 Comm: btrfs-cleaner Not tainted 3.11.0-rc4-hw+ #48
Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge 2950/0NH278, BIOS 2.7.0 10/30/2010
task: ffff8804261117d0 ti: ffff8804120d8000 task.ti: ffff8804120d8000
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff817b4c8c>] [<ffffffff817b4c8c>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xc/0x20
RSP: 0018:ffff8804120d98b8 EFLAGS: 00000296
RAX: ffff88042d800a80 RBX: ffffffff81130ffc RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000296 RDI: 0000000000000296
RBP: ffff8804120d98b8 R08: ffff8804120d9840 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: ffff8803c6f47400 R11: ffff88042d807180 R12: ffff8803c6f474a8
R13: 00000000000000cc R14: ffffffff8101f6da R15: ffff8804120d9828
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88043fd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
CR2: ffffffffff600400 CR3: 00000001a9fc4000 CR4: 00000000000007e0
Stack:
ffff8804120d9958 ffffffff817abea8 ffff8804120d98f8 ffffffff813733d0
00000034ffffffff 0000000000000296 ffff88004edd99d0 0000000000000010
ffff8804120d9918 ffffffff81319211 0000000000000004 ffff88004edd99d0
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff817abea8>] __slab_free+0x45/0x2df
[<ffffffff813733d0>] ? btrfs_set_lock_blocking_rw+0xa0/0xe0
[<ffffffff81319211>] ? btrfs_set_path_blocking+0x31/0x70
[<ffffffff8131f15b>] ? btrfs_search_old_slot+0x75b/0x980
[<ffffffff8139899e>] ? ulist_free+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff811336ed>] kfree+0xfd/0x130
[<ffffffff8139899e>] ulist_free+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff81396b96>] __resolve_indirect_refs+0x436/0x5b0
[<ffffffff8139757c>] find_parent_nodes+0x47c/0x6c0
[<ffffffff81397851>] btrfs_find_all_roots+0x91/0x100
[<ffffffff8139b7e8>] btrfs_qgroup_account_ref+0x148/0x500
[<ffffffff81328016>] btrfs_delayed_refs_qgroup_accounting+0xa6/0x100
[<ffffffff8132f6f9>] btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x49/0x5b0
[<ffffffff81328460>] ? walk_down_proc+0x120/0x2d0
[<ffffffff8135e359>] ? free_extent_buffer+0x59/0xb0
[<ffffffff8132c741>] ? walk_up_tree+0xe1/0x1e0
[<ffffffff8133f03a>] btrfs_should_end_transaction+0x4a/0x70
[<ffffffff8132df2b>] btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x3db/0x6a0
[<ffffffff8138e726>] ? btrfs_kill_all_delayed_nodes+0x56/0xf0
[<ffffffff817b4bee>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0xe/0x30
[<ffffffff81340b06>] btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xc6/0x130
[<ffffffff81337ab0>] cleaner_kthread+0x120/0x180
[<ffffffff81337990>] ? transaction_kthread+0x210/0x210
[<ffffffff8107af5b>] kthread+0xbb/0xc0
[<ffffffff81010000>] ? xen_smp_intr_init+0x100/0x220
[<ffffffff8107aea0>] ? kthread_freezable_should_stop+0x60/0x60
[<ffffffff817bcdbc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[<ffffffff8107aea0>] ? kthread_freezable_should_stop+0x60/0x60
Code: 66 0f c1 07 0f b6 d4 38 c2 74 0d 0f 1f 40 00 f3 90 0f b6 07 38 d0 75 f7 5d c3 0f 1f 44 00 00 55 48 89 e5 80 07 01 48 89 f7 57 9d <0f> 1f 44 00 00 5d c3 66 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 55
Perhaps something is still be wrong with the btrfs ulist stuff, even with
35f0399db6658f465b00893bdd13b992a0acfef0?
I was thinking of going back to the regular slab pipe allocations and
DEBUG_MUTEXES, but it may not be pipe-related at this point...
Simon-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-03 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-06 0:09 [3.10] Oopses in kmem_cache_allocate() via prepare_creds() Simon Kirby
2013-07-06 8:27 ` Pekka Enberg
2013-08-19 20:17 ` Simon Kirby
2013-08-19 20:29 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-08-19 21:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-08-19 21:24 ` Chris Mason
2013-08-19 23:31 ` Simon Kirby
2013-09-03 20:43 ` Simon Kirby [this message]
2013-08-20 4:06 ` Al Viro
2013-08-20 7:17 ` Ian Applegate
2013-08-20 7:21 ` Al Viro
2013-08-20 7:51 ` Ian Applegate
2013-11-26 0:44 ` Simon Kirby
2013-11-26 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-11-26 23:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-11-30 9:43 ` Simon Kirby
2013-11-30 17:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-11-30 21:04 ` Simon Kirby
2013-11-30 21:08 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20130903204307.GB22714@hostway.ca \
--to=sim@hostway.ca \
--cc=chris.mason@fusionio.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).