Re: Regression: memory corruption on Atmel SAMA5D31

[Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>]

On 2022-03-04 07:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2022-03-04 04:55, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 1:17 AM Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022-03-03 04:02, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 4:29 PM Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm seeing a weird problem, and I'd like some help with further
>>>>> things to try in order to track down what's going on. I have
>>>>> bisected the issue to
>>>>>
>>>>> f9aa460672c9 ("driver core: Refactor fw_devlink feature")
>>>>
>>>> I skimmed through your email and I'll read it more closely tomorrow,
>>>> but it wasn't clear if you see this on Linus's tip of the tree too.
>>>> Asking because of:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210930085714.2057460-1-yangyingliang@huawei.com/
>>>>
>>>> Also, a couple of other data points that _might_ help. Try kernel
>>>> command line option fw_devlink=permissive vs fw_devlink=on (I forget
>>>> if this was the default by 5.10) vs fw_devlink=off.
>>>>
>>>> I'm expecting "off" to fix the issue for you. But if permissive vs on
>>>> shows a difference driver issues would start becoming a real
>>>> possibility.
>>>>
>>>> -Saravana
>>>
>>> Thanks for the quick reply! I don't think I tested the very tip of
>>> Linus tree before, only latest rc or something like that, but now I
>>> have. I.e.
>>>
>>> 5859a2b19911 ("Merge branch 'ucount-rlimit-fixes-for-v5.17' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace")
>>>
>>> It would have been typical if an issue that existed for a couple of
>>> years had been fixed the last few weeks, but alas, no.
>>>
>>> On that kernel, and with whatever the default fw_devlink value is, the
>>
>> It's fw_devlink=on by default from at least 5.12-rc4 or so.
>>
>>> issue is there. It's a bit hard to tell if the incident probability
>>> is the same when trying fw_devlink arguments, but roughly so, and I
>>> do not have to wait for long to get a bad hash with the first
>>> reproducer
>>>
>>>    while :; do cat testfile | sha256sum; done
>>>
>>> The output is typical:
>>> 78464c59faa203413aceb5f75de85bbf4cde64f21b2d0449a2d72cd2aadac2a3  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> e03c5524ac6d16622b6c43f917aae730bc0793643f461253c4646b860c1a7215  -
>>> 1b8db6218f481cb8e4316c26118918359e764cc2c29393fd9ef4f2730274bb00  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 7d60bf848911d3b919d26941be33c928c666e9e5666f392d905af2d62d400570  -
>>> 212e1fe02c24134857ffb098f1834a2d87c655e0e5b9e08d4929f49a070be97c  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 7e33e751eb99a0f63b4f7d64b0a24f3306ffaf7c4bc4b27b82e5886c8ea31bc3  -
>>> d7a1f08aa9d0374d46d828fc3582f5927e076ff229b38c28089007cd0599c645  -
>>> 4fc963b7c7b14df9d669500f7c062bf378ff2751f705bb91eecd20d2f896f6fe  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>> 9360d886046c12d983b8bc73dd22302c57b0aafe58215700604fa977b4715fbe  -
>>> 4f9173f63cb2e13d1470e59e1b5c657f3b0f4f2e9a55ab6facffbb03f34ce04d  -
>>>
>>> Setting fw_devlink=off makes no difference, AFAICT.
>>
>> By this, I'm assuming you set fw_devlink=off in the kernel command
>> line and you still saw the corruption.
> 
> Yes. On a bad kernel it's the same with all of the following kernel
> command lines.
> 
> console=ttyS0,115200 rw oops=panic panic=30 fw_devlink=on ip=none root=ubi0:rootfs ubi.mtd=6 rootfstype=ubifs noinitrd mtdparts=atmel_nand:256k(at91bootstrap),384k(barebox),256k@768k(bareboxenv),256k(bareboxenv2),128k@1536k(oftree),5M@2M(kernel),248M@8M(rootfs),-@256M(ovlfs)
> 
> console=ttyS0,115200 rw oops=panic panic=30 fw_devlink=off ip=none root=ubi0:rootfs ubi.mtd=6 rootfstype=ubifs noinitrd mtdparts=atmel_nand:256k(at91bootstrap),384k(barebox),256k@768k(bareboxenv),256k(bareboxenv2),128k@1536k(oftree),5M@2M(kernel),248M@8M(rootfs),-@256M(ovlfs)
> 
> console=ttyS0,115200 rw oops=panic panic=30 fw_devlink=permissive ip=none root=ubi0:rootfs ubi.mtd=6 rootfstype=ubifs noinitrd mtdparts=atmel_nand:256k(at91bootstrap),384k(barebox),256k@768k(bareboxenv),256k(bareboxenv2),128k@1536k(oftree),5M@2M(kernel),248M@8M(rootfs),-@256M(ovlfs)
> 
>> If that's the case, I can't see how this could possibly have anything
>> to do with:
>> f9aa460672c9 ("driver core: Refactor fw_devlink feature")
>>
>> If you look at fw_devlink_link_device(), you'll see that the function
>> is NOP if fw_devlink=off (the !fw_devlink_flags check). And from
>> there, the rest of the code in the series doesn't run because more
>> fields wouldn't get set, etc. That pretty much disables ALL the code
>> in the entire series. The only remaining diff would be header file
>> changes where I add/remove fields. But that's unlikely to cause any
>> issues here because I'm either deleting fields that aren't used or
>> adding fields that won't be used (with fw_devlink=off). I think the
>> patch was just causing enough timing changes that it's masking the
>> real issue.
> 
> When I compare fw_devlink_link_device() from before and after
> f9aa460672c9 ("driver core: Refactor fw_devlink feature")
> I notice that you also removed an unconditional call to
> device_link_add_missing_supplier_links() that was live before,
> regardless of any fw_devlink parameter.
> 
> I don't know if that's relevant. Is it?
> 
> Not knowing this code at all, and without any serious attempt
> at reading it, from here the comment of that removed function
> sure looks like it might cause a different ordering before and
> after the patch that is not restored with any fw_devlink
> argument.

It appears that the device_link_add_missing_supplier_links() difference
is not relevant after all. What actually happened in the header file in
the "bad" commit was that two fields were removed (none added). Like so:

 struct dev_links_info {
 	struct list_head suppliers;
 	struct list_head consumers;
-	struct list_head needs_suppliers;
 	struct list_head defer_sync;
-	bool need_for_probe;
 	enum dl_dev_state status;
 };

If I restore those fields on a bad kernel, the issue is no longer
visible. That is true for the first bad kernel, i.e.

f9aa460672c9 ("driver core: Refactor fw_devlink feature")

and for tip of Linus as of recently, i.e.

5859a2b19911 ("Merge branch 'ucount-rlimit-fixes-for-v5.17' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace")

Which is of course insane and a whole different level of bad. WTF!?!

I wonder if I can dig out the old SAMA5D31 evaluation kit and reproduce
there? I think that's next on the list...

Cheers,
Peter