Re: 2.6.23 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh_enable()

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 01:55:19PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:21:57AM -0800, Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
> > > [2059664.615816] __iptables__: init4 IN=ppp0 OUT=ppp0 WARNING: at kernel/softirq.c:139 local_bh_enable()
> > > [2059664.620535]  [<80120364>] local_bh_enable+0x3c/0x97
> 
> > > [2059664.620657]  [<8011c205>] __call_console_drivers+0x61/0x6d
> > > [2059664.620669]  [<8011c3fc>] release_console_sem+0x164/0x1bf
> > > [2059664.620679]  [<8011c81f>] vprintk+0x27a/0x2ff
>  
> > If that trace is to be beieved we're doing nefilter stuff on packets which
> > were sent across netconsole.
> > 
> > This probably isn't anything the netfilter guys have thought about.  And
> > probably we don't want them to.  Is there some simple way in which we can
> > exempt netconsole from netfilter processing?
> 
> This is not about netfilter, but about freeing skb in interrupt context, 
> which is not allowed, and in interrupt skbs are queued to be freed in softirq,
> but netcnsole wants to flush softirq freeing queue. That is a question: why?

My memory here is hazy, but I think this exists to rescue netconsole
in low-memory situations. This bit originated with Ingo, so maybe he
can recall.

Netpoll can process an arbitrary number of skbs inside a single
interrupt. Think sysrq-t at one packet per line or kgdboe where the
entire trace session can happen inside one very long interrupt.

Perhaps we can refine this to mark netpoll's skbs (perhaps with
->destructor?) and delete only skbs we own. As these are never passed
through any of the other route/xfrm/filter code, they should be safe
to delete even in irq context, yes?

> Removing zap_completion_queue() from find_skb() will fix the warning,
> but I'm not sure this is a correct fix. I've added Matt to the Cc list.

Care to try the sysrq-t or OOM message tests?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.