* [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
@ 2014-05-30 14:59 Neil Horman
2014-06-02 8:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2014-05-30 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fcoe-devel; +Cc: Neil Horman, linux-scsi, Robert Love, Vasu Dev
debugfs caught this:
WARNING: at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0()
ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: work_struct
hint: fc_scsi_scan_rport+0x0/0xd0 [scsi_transport_fc]
CPU: 1 PID: 184 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G W
-------------- 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64.debug #1
Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL120 G7, BIOS J01 07/01/2013
Workqueue: fc_wq_5 fc_rport_final_delete [scsi_transport_fc]
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8169efec>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
[<ffffffff8106cbd1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x61/0x80
[<ffffffff8106cc4c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
[<ffffffff8133e003>] debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0
[<ffffffffa04e2f40>] ? fc_parse_wwn+0x100/0x100
[<ffffffff8133f23b>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x22b/0x270
[<ffffffffa04e127e>] ? fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff811db3e9>] kfree+0xd9/0x2d0
[<ffffffffa04e127e>] fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff81428032>] device_release+0x32/0xa0
[<ffffffff8132701e>] kobject_release+0x7e/0x1b0
[<ffffffff81326ed8>] kobject_put+0x28/0x60
[<ffffffff81428397>] put_device+0x17/0x20
[<ffffffffa04e5025>] fc_rport_final_delete+0x165/0x210
[<ffffffff810959b0>] process_one_work+0x220/0x710
[<ffffffff81095944>] ? process_one_work+0x1b4/0x710
[<ffffffff81095fbb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
[<ffffffff81095ea0>] ? process_one_work+0x710/0x710
[<ffffffff8109e0cd>] kthread+0xed/0x100
[<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
[<ffffffff816b2fec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
Seems to be because the scan_work work_struct might be active when the housing
fc_rport struct gets freed. Ensure that we cancel it prior to freeing the rport
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
CC: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@intel.com>
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
index 4628fd5..5bd552c 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
@@ -2548,6 +2548,7 @@ fc_rport_final_delete(struct work_struct *work)
fc_flush_devloss(shost);
if (!cancel_delayed_work(&rport->dev_loss_work))
fc_flush_devloss(shost);
+ cancel_work_sync(&rport->scan_work);
spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
rport->flags &= ~FC_RPORT_DEVLOSS_PENDING;
}
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
2014-05-30 14:59 [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport Neil Horman
@ 2014-06-02 8:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-06-02 9:28 ` Hannes Reinecke
[not found] ` <1401461974-7879-1-git-send-email-nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2014-06-02 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neil Horman; +Cc: fcoe-devel, linux-scsi, Robert Love, Vasu Dev
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
2014-05-30 14:59 [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport Neil Horman
2014-06-02 8:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2014-06-02 9:28 ` Hannes Reinecke
[not found] ` <1401461974-7879-1-git-send-email-nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Hannes Reinecke @ 2014-06-02 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neil Horman, fcoe-devel; +Cc: linux-scsi, Robert Love, Vasu Dev
On 05/30/2014 04:59 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> debugfs caught this:
> WARNING: at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0()
> ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: work_struct
> hint: fc_scsi_scan_rport+0x0/0xd0 [scsi_transport_fc]
> CPU: 1 PID: 184 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G W
> -------------- 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64.debug #1
> Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL120 G7, BIOS J01 07/01/2013
> Workqueue: fc_wq_5 fc_rport_final_delete [scsi_transport_fc]
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8169efec>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> [<ffffffff8106cbd1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x61/0x80
> [<ffffffff8106cc4c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
> [<ffffffff8133e003>] debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0
> [<ffffffffa04e2f40>] ? fc_parse_wwn+0x100/0x100
>
> [<ffffffff8133f23b>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x22b/0x270
> [<ffffffffa04e127e>] ? fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> [<ffffffff811db3e9>] kfree+0xd9/0x2d0
> [<ffffffffa04e127e>] fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> [<ffffffff81428032>] device_release+0x32/0xa0
> [<ffffffff8132701e>] kobject_release+0x7e/0x1b0
> [<ffffffff81326ed8>] kobject_put+0x28/0x60
> [<ffffffff81428397>] put_device+0x17/0x20
> [<ffffffffa04e5025>] fc_rport_final_delete+0x165/0x210
> [<ffffffff810959b0>] process_one_work+0x220/0x710
> [<ffffffff81095944>] ? process_one_work+0x1b4/0x710
> [<ffffffff81095fbb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
> [<ffffffff81095ea0>] ? process_one_work+0x710/0x710
> [<ffffffff8109e0cd>] kthread+0xed/0x100
> [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
> [<ffffffff816b2fec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
>
> Seems to be because the scan_work work_struct might be active when the housing
> fc_rport struct gets freed. Ensure that we cancel it prior to freeing the rport
>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> CC: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
> CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> index 4628fd5..5bd552c 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> @@ -2548,6 +2548,7 @@ fc_rport_final_delete(struct work_struct *work)
> fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> if (!cancel_delayed_work(&rport->dev_loss_work))
> fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> + cancel_work_sync(&rport->scan_work);
> spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> rport->flags &= ~FC_RPORT_DEVLOSS_PENDING;
> }
>
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1401461974-7879-1-git-send-email-nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
[not found] ` <1401461974-7879-1-git-send-email-nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
@ 2014-06-02 23:22 ` Vasu Dev
2014-06-06 20:54 ` Neil Horman
2014-06-16 11:15 ` [Open-FCoE] " Neil Horman
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Vasu Dev @ 2014-06-02 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Neil Horman
Cc: fcoe-devel-s9riP+hp16TNLxjTenLetw, linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 10:59 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> debugfs caught this:
> WARNING: at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0()
> ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: work_struct
> hint: fc_scsi_scan_rport+0x0/0xd0 [scsi_transport_fc]
> CPU: 1 PID: 184 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G W
> -------------- 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64.debug #1
> Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL120 G7, BIOS J01 07/01/2013
> Workqueue: fc_wq_5 fc_rport_final_delete [scsi_transport_fc]
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8169efec>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> [<ffffffff8106cbd1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x61/0x80
> [<ffffffff8106cc4c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
> [<ffffffff8133e003>] debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0
> [<ffffffffa04e2f40>] ? fc_parse_wwn+0x100/0x100
>
> [<ffffffff8133f23b>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x22b/0x270
> [<ffffffffa04e127e>] ? fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> [<ffffffff811db3e9>] kfree+0xd9/0x2d0
> [<ffffffffa04e127e>] fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> [<ffffffff81428032>] device_release+0x32/0xa0
> [<ffffffff8132701e>] kobject_release+0x7e/0x1b0
> [<ffffffff81326ed8>] kobject_put+0x28/0x60
> [<ffffffff81428397>] put_device+0x17/0x20
> [<ffffffffa04e5025>] fc_rport_final_delete+0x165/0x210
> [<ffffffff810959b0>] process_one_work+0x220/0x710
> [<ffffffff81095944>] ? process_one_work+0x1b4/0x710
> [<ffffffff81095fbb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
> [<ffffffff81095ea0>] ? process_one_work+0x710/0x710
> [<ffffffff8109e0cd>] kthread+0xed/0x100
> [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
> [<ffffffff816b2fec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
>
> Seems to be because the scan_work work_struct might be active when the housing
> fc_rport struct gets freed. Ensure that we cancel it prior to freeing the rport
>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
> CC: linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> index 4628fd5..5bd552c 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> @@ -2548,6 +2548,7 @@ fc_rport_final_delete(struct work_struct *work)
> fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> if (!cancel_delayed_work(&rport->dev_loss_work))
> fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> + cancel_work_sync(&rport->scan_work);
Make sense to ensure pending work canceled, adding James Smart for his
ACK as transport FC class author.
Reviewed-by: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> rport->flags &= ~FC_RPORT_DEVLOSS_PENDING;
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
2014-06-02 23:22 ` Vasu Dev
@ 2014-06-06 20:54 ` Neil Horman
[not found] ` <20140606205409.GD2543-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-16 11:15 ` [Open-FCoE] " Neil Horman
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2014-06-06 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vasu Dev
Cc: fcoe-devel-s9riP+hp16TNLxjTenLetw, linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:22:50PM -0700, Vasu Dev wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 10:59 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > debugfs caught this:
> > WARNING: at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0()
> > ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: work_struct
> > hint: fc_scsi_scan_rport+0x0/0xd0 [scsi_transport_fc]
> > CPU: 1 PID: 184 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G W
> > -------------- 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64.debug #1
> > Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL120 G7, BIOS J01 07/01/2013
> > Workqueue: fc_wq_5 fc_rport_final_delete [scsi_transport_fc]
> > Call Trace:
> > [<ffffffff8169efec>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> > [<ffffffff8106cbd1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x61/0x80
> > [<ffffffff8106cc4c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
> > [<ffffffff8133e003>] debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0
> > [<ffffffffa04e2f40>] ? fc_parse_wwn+0x100/0x100
> >
> > [<ffffffff8133f23b>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x22b/0x270
> > [<ffffffffa04e127e>] ? fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> > [<ffffffff811db3e9>] kfree+0xd9/0x2d0
> > [<ffffffffa04e127e>] fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> > [<ffffffff81428032>] device_release+0x32/0xa0
> > [<ffffffff8132701e>] kobject_release+0x7e/0x1b0
> > [<ffffffff81326ed8>] kobject_put+0x28/0x60
> > [<ffffffff81428397>] put_device+0x17/0x20
> > [<ffffffffa04e5025>] fc_rport_final_delete+0x165/0x210
> > [<ffffffff810959b0>] process_one_work+0x220/0x710
> > [<ffffffff81095944>] ? process_one_work+0x1b4/0x710
> > [<ffffffff81095fbb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
> > [<ffffffff81095ea0>] ? process_one_work+0x710/0x710
> > [<ffffffff8109e0cd>] kthread+0xed/0x100
> > [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
> > [<ffffffff816b2fec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
> >
> > Seems to be because the scan_work work_struct might be active when the housing
> > fc_rport struct gets freed. Ensure that we cancel it prior to freeing the rport
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
> > CC: linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> > CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> > index 4628fd5..5bd552c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> > @@ -2548,6 +2548,7 @@ fc_rport_final_delete(struct work_struct *work)
> > fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> > if (!cancel_delayed_work(&rport->dev_loss_work))
> > fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> > + cancel_work_sync(&rport->scan_work);
>
> Make sense to ensure pending work canceled, adding James Smart for his
> ACK as transport FC class author.
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>
Ping on this, Something just occured to me. I was thinking (perhaps
erroneously) that this would go through the FCoE tree, but I don't see that
you've setup a tree yet vasu (and Rob's has been idle for 6 months). Whats the
plan for this (and future) fcoe patchs. Will you have a tree, or will we send
this through Christophs new scsi tree perhaps?
Neil
>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> > rport->flags &= ~FC_RPORT_DEVLOSS_PENDING;
> > }
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Open-FCoE] [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
2014-06-02 23:22 ` Vasu Dev
2014-06-06 20:54 ` Neil Horman
@ 2014-06-16 11:15 ` Neil Horman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2014-06-16 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vasu Dev; +Cc: fcoe-devel, linux-scsi, james.smart
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:22:50PM -0700, Vasu Dev wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 10:59 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > debugfs caught this:
> > WARNING: at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0()
> > ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: work_struct
> > hint: fc_scsi_scan_rport+0x0/0xd0 [scsi_transport_fc]
> > CPU: 1 PID: 184 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G W
> > -------------- 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64.debug #1
> > Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL120 G7, BIOS J01 07/01/2013
> > Workqueue: fc_wq_5 fc_rport_final_delete [scsi_transport_fc]
> > Call Trace:
> > [<ffffffff8169efec>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> > [<ffffffff8106cbd1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x61/0x80
> > [<ffffffff8106cc4c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
> > [<ffffffff8133e003>] debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0
> > [<ffffffffa04e2f40>] ? fc_parse_wwn+0x100/0x100
> >
> > [<ffffffff8133f23b>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x22b/0x270
> > [<ffffffffa04e127e>] ? fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> > [<ffffffff811db3e9>] kfree+0xd9/0x2d0
> > [<ffffffffa04e127e>] fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
> > [<ffffffff81428032>] device_release+0x32/0xa0
> > [<ffffffff8132701e>] kobject_release+0x7e/0x1b0
> > [<ffffffff81326ed8>] kobject_put+0x28/0x60
> > [<ffffffff81428397>] put_device+0x17/0x20
> > [<ffffffffa04e5025>] fc_rport_final_delete+0x165/0x210
> > [<ffffffff810959b0>] process_one_work+0x220/0x710
> > [<ffffffff81095944>] ? process_one_work+0x1b4/0x710
> > [<ffffffff81095fbb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
> > [<ffffffff81095ea0>] ? process_one_work+0x710/0x710
> > [<ffffffff8109e0cd>] kthread+0xed/0x100
> > [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
> > [<ffffffff816b2fec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
> >
> > Seems to be because the scan_work work_struct might be active when the housing
> > fc_rport struct gets freed. Ensure that we cancel it prior to freeing the rport
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > CC: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
> > CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
> > CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> > index 4628fd5..5bd552c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
> > @@ -2548,6 +2548,7 @@ fc_rport_final_delete(struct work_struct *work)
> > fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> > if (!cancel_delayed_work(&rport->dev_loss_work))
> > fc_flush_devloss(shost);
> > + cancel_work_sync(&rport->scan_work);
>
> Make sense to ensure pending work canceled, adding James Smart for his
> ACK as transport FC class author.
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@intel.com>
>
>
> > spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
> > rport->flags &= ~FC_RPORT_DEVLOSS_PENDING;
> > }
>
>
>
Ping James, I beleve Christoph is still waiting on a review from you here.
Neil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport
@ 2014-06-23 14:40 Neil Horman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2014-06-23 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Cc: Neil Horman, James E.J. Bottomley, Christoph Hellwig, linux-scsi,
Robert Love, Vasu Dev
debugfs caught this:
WARNING: at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0()
ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: work_struct
hint: fc_scsi_scan_rport+0x0/0xd0 [scsi_transport_fc]
CPU: 1 PID: 184 Comm: kworker/1:1 Tainted: G W
-------------- 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64.debug #1
Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL120 G7, BIOS J01 07/01/2013
Workqueue: fc_wq_5 fc_rport_final_delete [scsi_transport_fc]
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8169efec>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
[<ffffffff8106cbd1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x61/0x80
[<ffffffff8106cc4c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
[<ffffffff8133e003>] debug_print_object+0x83/0xa0
[<ffffffffa04e2f40>] ? fc_parse_wwn+0x100/0x100
[<ffffffff8133f23b>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x22b/0x270
[<ffffffffa04e127e>] ? fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff811db3e9>] kfree+0xd9/0x2d0
[<ffffffffa04e127e>] fc_rport_dev_release+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff81428032>] device_release+0x32/0xa0
[<ffffffff8132701e>] kobject_release+0x7e/0x1b0
[<ffffffff81326ed8>] kobject_put+0x28/0x60
[<ffffffff81428397>] put_device+0x17/0x20
[<ffffffffa04e5025>] fc_rport_final_delete+0x165/0x210
[<ffffffff810959b0>] process_one_work+0x220/0x710
[<ffffffff81095944>] ? process_one_work+0x1b4/0x710
[<ffffffff81095fbb>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x3a0
[<ffffffff81095ea0>] ? process_one_work+0x710/0x710
[<ffffffff8109e0cd>] kthread+0xed/0x100
[<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
[<ffffffff816b2fec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[<ffffffff8109dfe0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
Seems to be because the scan_work work_struct might be active when the housing
fc_rport struct gets freed. Ensure that we cancel it prior to freeing the rport
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
CC: "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@parallels.com>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
CC: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
CC: Robert Love <robert.w.love@intel.com>
CC: Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@intel.com>
---
drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
index 4628fd5..5bd552c 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
@@ -2548,6 +2548,7 @@ fc_rport_final_delete(struct work_struct *work)
fc_flush_devloss(shost);
if (!cancel_delayed_work(&rport->dev_loss_work))
fc_flush_devloss(shost);
+ cancel_work_sync(&rport->scan_work);
spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
rport->flags &= ~FC_RPORT_DEVLOSS_PENDING;
}
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-23 14:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-30 14:59 [PATCH] fc: ensure scan_work isn't active when freeing fc_rport Neil Horman
2014-06-02 8:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-06-02 9:28 ` Hannes Reinecke
[not found] ` <1401461974-7879-1-git-send-email-nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-02 23:22 ` Vasu Dev
2014-06-06 20:54 ` Neil Horman
[not found] ` <20140606205409.GD2543-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-09 18:09 ` Vasu Dev
2014-06-09 19:16 ` [Open-FCoE] " Neil Horman
2014-06-10 11:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <20140610113841.GC26195-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
2014-06-10 15:49 ` Neil Horman
2014-06-16 11:15 ` [Open-FCoE] " Neil Horman
2014-06-23 14:40 Neil Horman
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.