[ Added Peter Zijlstra ]
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 10:48 -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> Linux-next from Oct 30 did not have this problem. Linux next from
> yesterday (and today) I always hit this on boot.
Could you also give the SHA1 of Linux-next, as well as the config you
used.
>
> [ 7.989630] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00000000000160de
> [ 7.990538] IP: [<ffffffff8123cdbf>] strcmp+0xf/0x30
> [ 7.990538] PGD 77f7e067 PUD 77ff1067 PMD 0
> [ 7.990538] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> [ 7.990538] last sysfs file: /sys/devices/platform/i8042/serio0/input/input2/event2/uevent
> [ 7.990538] CPU 0
> [ 7.990538] Modules linked in: ata_piix(+)
> [ 7.990538] Pid: 1024, comm: modprobe Not tainted 2.6.32-rc5-fanotify-next-20091102 #150
Just curious, what module were you loading?
> [ 7.990538] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8123cdbf>] [<ffffffff8123cdbf>] strcmp+0xf/0x30
> [ 7.990538] RSP: 0018:ffff8800774d5c78 EFLAGS: 00010086
> [ 7.990538] RAX: 0000000000000026 RBX: ffffffff820fbe60 RCX: 00000000000001cc
> [ 7.990538] RDX: 0000000000000026 RSI: 00000000000160de RDI: ffffffff81790728
> [ 7.990538] RBP: ffff8800774d5c78 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffffff820fbe70
> [ 7.990538] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffff820c4320
> [ 7.990538] R13: ffffffff820c4520 R14: ffffffff824b11c0 R15: ffffffff81a63570
> [ 7.990538] FS: 00007f043db3a700(0000) GS:ffff880006200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 7.990538] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> [ 7.990538] CR2: 00000000000160de CR3: 0000000077519000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
> [ 7.990538] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [ 7.990538] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [ 7.990538] Process modprobe (pid: 1024, threadinfo ffff8800774d4000, task ffff88007769a440)
> [ 7.990538] Stack:
> [ 7.990538] ffff8800774d5cd8 ffffffff8108f9c7 ffff8800774d5ce8 ffffffff820fbe70
> [ 7.990538] <0> ffff880000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000002 0000000000000000
> [ 7.990538] <0> 0000000000000002 ffff88007769a440 0000000000000002 ffffffff81a63570
> [ 7.990538] Call Trace:
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff8108f9c7>] register_lock_class+0x237/0x5b0
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810941c6>] __lock_acquire+0x76/0x6a0
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810948a1>] lock_acquire+0xb1/0x150
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810d9d25>] ? trace_module_notify+0x25/0x360
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff814a29d8>] __mutex_lock_common+0x58/0x510
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810d9d25>] ? trace_module_notify+0x25/0x360
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff81081035>] ? sched_clock_local+0x15/0x80
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff8108115b>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xbb/0x100
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810d9d25>] ? trace_module_notify+0x25/0x360
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff814a2f6c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810d9d25>] trace_module_notify+0x25/0x360
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810804d8>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x48/0x90
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff814a8725>] notifier_call_chain+0x45/0x80
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810804ee>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5e/0x90
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff81080531>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x20
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff810a2e01>] sys_init_module+0xb1/0x270
> [ 7.990538] [<ffffffff8100af02>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 7.990538] Code: 83 c6 01 84 c0 88 01 74 0d 48 83 c1 01 48 83 ea 01 75 e9 c6 01 00 c9 48 89 f8 c3 90 55 48 89 e5 eb 04 48 83 c7 01 0f b6 17 89 d0 <2a> 06 48 83 c6 01 84 c0 75 04 84 d2 75 e9 c9 0f be c0 c3 0f 1f
> [ 7.990538] RIP [<ffffffff8123cdbf>] strcmp+0xf/0x30
> [ 7.990538] RSP <ffff8800774d5c78>
> [ 7.990538] CR2: 00000000000160de
> [ 7.990538] ---[ end trace c7a840a812150e3c ]---
> [ 7.990538] note: modprobe[1024] exited with preempt_count 1
> [ 8.270817] modprobe used greatest stack depth: 4376 bytes left
> udevd-work[919]: '/sbin/modprobe -b pci:v00008086d00007010sv00001AF4sd00001100bc01sc01i80' unexpected exit with status 0x0009
>
> udevd-work[919]: '/sbin/modprobe -b pci:v00008086d00007010sv00001AF4sd00001100bc01sc01i80' unexpected exit with status 0x0009
>
>
> So it looks to me like we are locking the event_mutex (?for the first
> time?) in trace_module_load. Eventually we get to __lock_acquire which
> calls register_lock_class() which gets into count_matching_names() which
> starts calling strcmp on lock_class->names.
Hmm, event_mutex is defined with
DEFINE_MUTEX(event_mutex);
in trace_events.c (well, in my kernel, I'm not looking at linux-next
right now). This should set up lockdep without any issues.
>
> static int count_matching_names(struct lock_class *new_class)
> {
> [snip]
> if (class->name && !strcmp(class->name, new_class->name))
> count = max(count, class->name_version);
>
> So, strcmp from lib/string.c
>
> int strcmp(const char *cs, const char *ct)
> {
> signed char __res;
>
> while (1) {
> if ((__res = *cs - *ct++) != 0 || !*cs++)
> break;
> }
> return __res;
> }
>
> And it's assembly:
> ffffffff8123cdb0 <strcmp>:
> ffffffff8123cdb0: 55 push %rbp
> ffffffff8123cdb1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
> ffffffff8123cdb4: eb 04 jmp ffffffff8123cdba <strcmp+0xa>
> ffffffff8123cdb6: 48 83 c7 01 add $0x1,%rdi
> ffffffff8123cdba: 0f b6 17 movzbl (%rdi),%edx
> ffffffff8123cdbd: 89 d0 mov %edx,%eax
> ffffffff8123cdbf: 2a 06 sub (%rsi),%al
> ffffffff8123cdc1: 48 83 c6 01 add $0x1,%rsi
> ffffffff8123cdc5: 84 c0 test %al,%al
> ffffffff8123cdc7: 75 04 jne ffffffff8123cdcd <strcmp+0x1d>
> ffffffff8123cdc9: 84 d2 test %dl,%dl
> ffffffff8123cdcb: 75 e9 jne ffffffff8123cdb6 <strcmp+0x6>
> ffffffff8123cdcd: c9 leaveq
> ffffffff8123cdce: 0f be c0 movsbl %al,%eax
> ffffffff8123cdd1: c3 retq
> ffffffff8123cdd2: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
> ffffffff8123cdd9: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
>
> Looks to me like %rdi is the first argument to strcmp (cs) and %rsi is
> the second argument (ct). %rsi has the crap value. This means that
> new_class->name was != NULL, but wasn't valid. So it's something to do
> with the event_lock....
>
> I'm sure someone who knows this code better than I can explain how that
> gets messed up.....
Would be better to get more info (as asked above). You can send
the .config privately to me, as not to spam LKML with it.
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
