From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752496AbdJJFat (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:30:49 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:58196 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751809AbdJJFas (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:30:48 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.151 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:30:46 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Fengguang Wu , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , LKP , Josh Poimboeuf , kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2 Message-ID: <20171010053045.GC3323@X58A-UD3R> References: <20171003140634.r2jzujgl62ox4uzh@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20171003171824.te5cxms2hq634tvi@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171003171824.te5cxms2hq634tvi@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:18:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > > > This patch triggers a NULL-dereference bug at update_stack_state(). > > > Although its parent commit also has a NULL-dereference bug, however > > > the call stack looks rather different. Both dmesg files are attached. > > > > > > It also triggers this warning, which is being discussed in another > > > thread, so CC Josh. The full dmesg attached, too. > > > > > > Please press Enter to activate this console. > > > [ 138.605622] WARNING: kernel stack regs at be299c9a in procd:340 has bad 'bp' value 000001be > > > [ 138.605627] unwind stack type:0 next_sp: (null) mask:0x2 graph_idx:0 > > > [ 138.605631] be299c9a: 299ceb00 (0x299ceb00) > > > [ 138.605633] be299c9e: 2281f1be (0x2281f1be) > > > [ 138.605634] be299ca2: 299cebb6 (0x299cebb6) > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master > > > > > > commit b09be676e0ff25bd6d2e7637e26d349f9109ad75 > > > locking/lockdep: Implement the 'crossrelease' feature > > > > Can we consider just reverting the crossrelease thing? > > Yes, I'll do that tomorrow. I was always a bit unhappy about cross-release, > because it breaks the 'owner task owns the lock' model. Plus I don't think Of course, I may have taken a mistake. It would be appriciated if you let me know and fix it, if it actually exists. But I believe that the design of crossrelease to detect deadlocks in more general way is correct. As you know, dependencies do not have to be created by the model, while all waiters can create dependencies causing deadlocks. So the model should be broken for such waiters to be in.