linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review
       [not found] ` <CA+G9fYvgzFW7sMZVdw5r970QNNg4OK8=pbQV0kDfbOX-rXu5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2022-04-20 23:48   ` Naresh Kamboju
  2022-04-26  2:29     ` NeilBrown
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Naresh Kamboju @ 2022-04-20 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
  Cc: linux-kernel, stable, torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches,
	lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee,
	slade, Netdev, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni,
	NeilBrown, Trond Myklebust, linux-nfs, Anna Schumaker

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
> > There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > let me know.
> >
> > Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
> > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
> > or in the git tree and branch at:
> >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > and the diffstat can be found below.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
>
> Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
> stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
>
> [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
> [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version
> 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
> [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
> <trim>
> [   18.499895] ================================
> [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
> [   18.511944] --------------------------------
> [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
> (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
> [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c
> [   18.545216]   _raw_spin_lock+0x50/0x64
> [   18.548973]   xs_tcp_state_change+0x1b4/0x440
> [   18.553343]   tcp_rcv_state_process+0x684/0x1300
> [   18.557972]   tcp_v4_do_rcv+0x70/0x290
> [   18.561731]   tcp_v4_rcv+0xc34/0xda0
> [   18.565316]   ip_local_deliver_finish+0x16c/0x3c0
> [   18.570032]   ip_local_deliver+0x6c/0x240
> [   18.574051]   ip_rcv_finish+0x98/0xe4
> [   18.577722]   ip_rcv+0x68/0x210
> [   18.580871]   __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x6c/0x9c
> [   18.585847]   __netif_receive_skb+0x2c/0x74
> [   18.590039]   netif_receive_skb_internal+0x88/0x20c
> [   18.594928]   netif_receive_skb+0x68/0x1a0
> [   18.599036]   smsc911x_poll+0x104/0x290
> [   18.602881]   net_rx_action+0x124/0x4bc
> [   18.606727]   __do_softirq+0x1d0/0x524
> [   18.610484]   irq_exit+0x11c/0x144
> [   18.613894]   __handle_domain_irq+0x84/0xe0
> [   18.618086]   gic_handle_irq+0x5c/0xb0
> [   18.621843]   el1_irq+0xb4/0x130
> [   18.625081]   cpuidle_enter_state+0xc0/0x3ec
> [   18.629361]   cpuidle_enter+0x38/0x4c
> [   18.633032]   do_idle+0x200/0x2c0
> [   18.636353]   cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x50
> [   18.640372]   rest_init+0x260/0x270
> [   18.643870]   start_kernel+0x45c/0x490
> [   18.647625] irq event stamp: 18931
> [   18.651037] hardirqs last  enabled at (18931): [<ffff00000832e800>]
> kfree+0xe0/0x370
> [   18.658799] hardirqs last disabled at (18930): [<ffff00000832e7ec>]
> kfree+0xcc/0x370
> [   18.666564] softirqs last  enabled at (18920): [<ffff000008fbce94>]
> rpc_wake_up_first_on_wq+0xb4/0x1b0
> [   18.675893] softirqs last disabled at (18918): [<ffff000008fbce18>]
> rpc_wake_up_first_on_wq+0x38/0x1b0
> [   18.685217]
> [   18.685217] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   18.691758]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [   18.691758]
> [   18.697689]        CPU0
> [   18.700137]        ----
> [   18.702586]   lock(&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock);
> [   18.707562]   <Interrupt>
> [   18.710184]     lock(&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock);
> [   18.715335]
> [   18.715335]  *** DEADLOCK ***

My bisect script pointed to the following kernel commit,

BAT BISECTION OLD: This iteration (kernel rev
2d235d26dcf81d34c93ba8616d75c804b5ee5f3f) presents old behavior.
242a3e0c75b64b4ced82e29e07a6d6d98eeec826 is the first new commit
commit 242a3e0c75b64b4ced82e29e07a6d6d98eeec826
Author: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Date:   Tue Mar 8 13:42:17 2022 +1100

    SUNRPC: avoid race between mod_timer() and del_timer_sync()

    commit 3848e96edf4788f772d83990022fa7023a233d83 upstream.

    xprt_destory() claims XPRT_LOCKED and then calls del_timer_sync().
    Both xprt_unlock_connect() and xprt_release() call
     ->release_xprt()
    which drops XPRT_LOCKED and *then* xprt_schedule_autodisconnect()
    which calls mod_timer().

    This may result in mod_timer() being called *after* del_timer_sync().
    When this happens, the timer may fire long after the xprt has been freed,
    and run_timer_softirq() will probably crash.

    The pairing of ->release_xprt() and xprt_schedule_autodisconnect() is
    always called under ->transport_lock.  So if we take ->transport_lock to
    call del_timer_sync(), we can be sure that mod_timer() will run first
    (if it runs at all).

    Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
    Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
    Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
    Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

 net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>

 --
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review
  2022-04-20 23:48   ` [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review Naresh Kamboju
@ 2022-04-26  2:29     ` NeilBrown
  2022-12-16 18:31       ` Michael Trimarchi
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2022-04-26  2:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Naresh Kamboju
  Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel, stable, torvalds, akpm, linux,
	shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
	sudipm.mukherjee, slade, Netdev, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	Paolo Abeni, Trond Myklebust, linux-nfs, Anna Schumaker

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
> > > There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
> > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > >
> > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
> > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> >
> >
> > Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
> > stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
> >
> > [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
> > [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version
> > 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
> > [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
> > <trim>
> > [   18.499895] ================================
> > [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
> > [   18.511944] --------------------------------
> > [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> > [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
> > (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
> > [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> > [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c

Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and 
spin_unlock_bh().

Thanks,
NeilBrown

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review
  2022-04-26  2:29     ` NeilBrown
@ 2022-12-16 18:31       ` Michael Trimarchi
  2022-12-16 21:24         ` Trond Myklebust
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael Trimarchi @ 2022-12-16 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: NeilBrown
  Cc: Naresh Kamboju, Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel, stable,
	torvalds, akpm, linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel,
	jonathanh, f.fainelli, sudipm.mukherjee, slade, Netdev,
	David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Trond Myklebust,
	linux-nfs, Anna Schumaker

Hi Neil

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:29:55PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
> > > > There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > >
> > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> > > >         https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
> > > > or in the git tree and branch at:
> > > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> > > > and the diffstat can be found below.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > >
> > >
> > > Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
> > > stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
> > >
> > > [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
> > > [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version
> > > 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
> > > [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
> > > <trim>
> > > [   18.499895] ================================
> > > [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > > [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
> > > [   18.511944] --------------------------------
> > > [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> > > [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > > [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
> > > (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
> > > [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> > > [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c
> 
> Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and 
> spin_unlock_bh().
> 

We get the same deadlock or similar one and we think that
can be connected to this thread on 4.19.243. For us is a bit
difficult to hit but we are going to apply this change

net: sunrpc: Fix deadlock in xprt_destroy

Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and
spin_unlock_bh().

Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>
---
 net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
index d05fa7c36d00..b1abf4848bbc 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
@@ -1550,9 +1550,9 @@ static void xprt_destroy(struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
 	 * is cleared.  We use ->transport_lock to ensure the mod_timer()
 	 * can only run *before* del_time_sync(), never after.
 	 */
-	spin_lock(&xprt->transport_lock);
+	spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
 	del_timer_sync(&xprt->timer);
-	spin_unlock(&xprt->transport_lock);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Destroy sockets etc from the system workqueue so they can
-- 
2.37.2

> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>

Thank you

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review
  2022-12-16 18:31       ` Michael Trimarchi
@ 2022-12-16 21:24         ` Trond Myklebust
  2022-12-17  9:01           ` Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2022-12-16 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Trimarchi
  Cc: Neil Brown, Naresh Kamboju, Greg Kroah-Hartman,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, stable, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton,
	linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
	sudipm.mukherjee, slade, Netdev, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	Paolo Abeni, Trond Myklebust, linux-nfs, Anna Schumaker



> On Dec 16, 2022, at 13:31, Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> 
> [You don't often get email from michael@amarulasolutions.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> Hi Neil
> 
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:29:55PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
>>>>> There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>>>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>>>>> let me know.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
>>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>>>>>        https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
>>>>> or in the git tree and branch at:
>>>>>        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
>>>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> greg k-h
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
>>>> stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
>>>> 
>>>> [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
>>>> [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version
>>>> 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
>>>> [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
>>>> <trim>
>>>> [   18.499895] ================================
>>>> [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
>>>> [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
>>>> [   18.511944] --------------------------------
>>>> [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
>>>> [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
>>>> [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
>>>> (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
>>>> [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
>>>> [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c
>> 
>> Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and
>> spin_unlock_bh().
>> 
> 
> We get the same deadlock or similar one and we think that
> can be connected to this thread on 4.19.243. For us is a bit
> difficult to hit but we are going to apply this change
> 
> net: sunrpc: Fix deadlock in xprt_destroy
> 
> Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and
> spin_unlock_bh().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> index d05fa7c36d00..b1abf4848bbc 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> @@ -1550,9 +1550,9 @@ static void xprt_destroy(struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
>         * is cleared.  We use ->transport_lock to ensure the mod_timer()
>         * can only run *before* del_time_sync(), never after.
>         */
> -       spin_lock(&xprt->transport_lock);
> +       spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
>        del_timer_sync(&xprt->timer);
> -       spin_unlock(&xprt->transport_lock);
> +       spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 
>        /*
>         * Destroy sockets etc from the system workqueue so they can
> —

Agreed. When backporting to kernels that are older than 5.3.x, the transport lock needs to be taken using the bh-safe spin lock variants.

Reviewed-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com <mailto:trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>>

_________________________________
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review
  2022-12-16 21:24         ` Trond Myklebust
@ 2022-12-17  9:01           ` Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi @ 2022-12-17  9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Trond Myklebust
  Cc: Neil Brown, Naresh Kamboju, Greg Kroah-Hartman,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, stable, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton,
	linux, shuah, patches, lkft-triage, pavel, jonathanh, f.fainelli,
	sudipm.mukherjee, slade, Netdev, David S. Miller, Jakub Kicinski,
	Paolo Abeni, linux-nfs, Anna Schumaker

Hi

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:25 PM Trond Myklebust
<trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 2022, at 13:31, Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > [You don't often get email from michael@amarulasolutions.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > Hi Neil
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:29:55PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >>>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release.
> >>>>> There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >>>>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >>>>> let me know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000.
> >>>>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >>>>>        https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz
> >>>>> or in the git tree and branch at:
> >>>>>        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y
> >>>>> and the diffstat can be found below.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> greg k-h
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting
> >>>> stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
> >>>>
> >>>> [    0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033]
> >>>> [    0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version
> >>>> 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156
> >>>> [    0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
> >>>> <trim>
> >>>> [   18.499895] ================================
> >>>> [   18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> >>>> [   18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted
> >>>> [   18.511944] --------------------------------
> >>>> [   18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> >>>> [   18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> >>>> [   18.527826] (____ptrval____)
> >>>> (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0
> >>>> [   18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> >>>> [   18.541543]   lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c
> >>
> >> Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and
> >> spin_unlock_bh().
> >>
> >
> > We get the same deadlock or similar one and we think that
> > can be connected to this thread on 4.19.243. For us is a bit
> > difficult to hit but we are going to apply this change
> >
> > net: sunrpc: Fix deadlock in xprt_destroy
> >
> > Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and
> > spin_unlock_bh().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com>
> > ---
> > net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> > index d05fa7c36d00..b1abf4848bbc 100644
> > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> > @@ -1550,9 +1550,9 @@ static void xprt_destroy(struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
> >         * is cleared.  We use ->transport_lock to ensure the mod_timer()
> >         * can only run *before* del_time_sync(), never after.
> >         */
> > -       spin_lock(&xprt->transport_lock);
> > +       spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> >        del_timer_sync(&xprt->timer);
> > -       spin_unlock(&xprt->transport_lock);
> > +       spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> >
> >        /*
> >         * Destroy sockets etc from the system workqueue so they can
> > —
>
> Agreed. When backporting to kernels that are older than 5.3.x, the transport lock needs to be taken using the bh-safe spin lock variants.
>
> Reviewed-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com <mailto:trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>>
>

Seems already applied, but for some reason I miss it. I will re-align
to stable again

Michael

> _________________________________
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
>


-- 
Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi
Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer
M. +39 347 913 2170
michael@amarulasolutions.com
__________________________________

Amarula Solutions BV
Joop Geesinkweg 125, 1114 AB, Amsterdam, NL
T. +31 (0)85 111 9172
info@amarulasolutions.com
www.amarulasolutions.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-17  9:01 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <20220414110838.883074566@linuxfoundation.org>
     [not found] ` <CA+G9fYvgzFW7sMZVdw5r970QNNg4OK8=pbQV0kDfbOX-rXu5Rw@mail.gmail.com>
2022-04-20 23:48   ` [PATCH 4.19 000/338] 4.19.238-rc1 review Naresh Kamboju
2022-04-26  2:29     ` NeilBrown
2022-12-16 18:31       ` Michael Trimarchi
2022-12-16 21:24         ` Trond Myklebust
2022-12-17  9:01           ` Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).