On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 5:44 PM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Jason & others,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:33 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:15 PM Igor Raits <igor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Stefan,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 2:12 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:00:08AM +0100, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > We have started to observe kernel crashes on 6.7.y kernels (atm we
> > > > > have hit the issue 5 times on 6.7.5 and 6.7.10). On 6.6.9 where we
> > > > > have nodes of cluster it looks stable. Please see stacktrace below. If
> > > > > you need more information please let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > We do not have a consistent reproducer but when we put some bigger
> > > > > network load on a VM, the hypervisor's kernel crashes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Help is much appreciated! We are happy to test any patches.
> > > >
> > > > CCing Michael Tsirkin and Jason Wang for vhost_net.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [62254.167584] stack segment: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP NOPTI
> > > > > [62254.173450] CPU: 63 PID: 11939 Comm: vhost-11890 Tainted: G
> > > > > E 6.7.10-1.gdc.el9.x86_64 #1
> > > >
> > > > Are there any patches in this kernel?
> > >
> > > Only one, unrelated to this part. Removal of pr_err("EEVDF scheduling
> > > fail, picking leftmost\n"); line (reported somewhere few months ago
> > > and it was suggested workaround until proper solution comes).
> >
> > Btw, a bisection would help as well.
>
> In the end it seems like we don't really have "stable" setup, so
> bisection looks to be useless but we did find few things meantime:
>
> 1. On 6.6.9 it crashes either with unexpected GSO type or usercopy:
> Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object
> 'skbuff_head_cache'
Do you have a full calltrace for this?
> 2. On 6.7.5, 6.7.10 and 6.8.1 it crashes with RIP:
> 0010:skb_release_data+0xb8/0x1e0
And for this?
> 3. It does NOT crash on 6.8.1 when VM does not have multi-queue setup
>
> Looks like the multi-queue setup (we have 2 interfaces × 3 virtio
> queues for each) is causing problems as if we set only one queue for
> each interface the issue is gone.
> Maybe there is some race condition in __pfx_vhost_task_fn+0x10/0x10 or
> somewhere around?
I can't tell now, but it seems not because if we have 3 queue pairs we
will have 3 vhost threads.
> We have noticed that there are 3 of such functions
> in the stacktrace that gave us hints about what we could try…
Let's try to enable SLUB_DEBUG and KASAN to see if we can get
something interesting.
Thanks
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Thank you!
>
