Re: Linux 2.6.38-rc4 (other bugs: ipmi Oops)

[Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>]

On 02/10/2011 02:03 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Randy Dunlap<randy.dunlap@oracle.com>  wrote:
>> Loading ipmi_si module a second time causes an Oops:
>>
>> [   68.120143] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff813fc579>]  [<ffffffff813fc579>] put_driver+0x10/0x22
> The disassembly is
>
>    	55                   	push   %rbp
>    	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
>    	0f 1f 44 00 00       	nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>    	48 ff 05 c7 af 80 01 	incq   0x180afc7(%rip)        # 0x180aff2
>    *	48 8b 7f 60          	mov    0x60(%rdi),%rdi<-- trapping instruction
>    	e8 38 27 ec ff       	callq  0xffffffffffec276c
>    	48 ff 05 bf af 80 01 	incq   0x180afbf(%rip)        # 0x180affa
>    	c9                   	leaveq
>    	c3                   	retq
>
> which is the access of "drv->p" in that function:
>
>     kobject_put(&drv->p->kobj);
>
> so "drv" that was passed in was just bogus. (it's
> "0xffffffffa06a8430", looks like it's the DEBUG_PAGEALLOC that has
> caused the page to be free'd).
>
>> [   68.340115] Call Trace:
>> [   68.340115]  [<ffffffff813fc64b>] driver_register+0xc0/0x1b2
>> [   68.340115]  [<ffffffff8137f5de>] pnp_register_driver+0x28/0x31
>> [   68.340115]  [<ffffffffa06b888d>] init_ipmi_si+0x1a4/0x4cd [ipmi_si]
>> [   68.340115]  [<ffffffff810020a6>] do_one_initcall+0x6c/0x1e3
>> [   68.340115]  [<ffffffff810d4998>] sys_init_module+0x12b/0x307
> And I think that - as usual - the problem is that the damn driver
> cleanup is very ugly, and has this duplicate set of code to unregister
> all the random crap. Except one of the duplicates is missing one case.
> I think the bug was introduced by Gjorn Helgaas in commit 9e368fa011d4
> ("ipmi: add PNP discovery (ACPI namespace via PNPACPI)") which added
> the acpi pnp case, but only unregistered it on the regular module exit
> path, not on the "module loaded with no pnp devices" path.
Yes, I already have a patch (that was neglected) from Peter Huewe to fix 
this problem.  I'll send it today once I finish testing it.

> Does this patch fix it? And Corey - this is a good example of why the
> code shouldn't duplicate the "unregister stuff" in the module load
> error case vs the module exit path, and there should be a shared
> "cleanup()" function that is called by both. Can this be cleaned up,
> please?
I will work on that.

-corey