On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:32:43 +0200 William Dauchy <william@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > After a few days of testing, I was unable to reproduce the null deref > mentionned in this thread. > Do you think we can ask for a backport in stable@ for v4.1? > > bcd7f78 locks: have flock_lock_file take an inode pointer instead of a filp > 29d01b2 locks: new helpers - flock_lock_inode_wait and posix_lock_inode_wait > ee296d7 locks: inline posix_lock_file_wait and flock_lock_file_wait > 83bfff2 nfs4: have do_vfs_lock take an inode pointer > Yes, I think those four patches should go into v4.1-stable. Do you need me to do anything to make that happen? Thanks, Jeff > On Oct19 19:40, William Dauchy wrote: > > On Oct19 18:33, William Dauchy wrote: > > > I am getting the following null deref on locks_get_lock_context using a v4.1.x > > > (x86_64) while using the nfs client v4.0. > > > > > > Any hint to help debug that issue? > > > > > > > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000000000001c8 > > > IP: [<ffffffff811d0cf3>] locks_get_lock_context+0x3/0xc0 > > > PGD 0 > > > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP > > > CPU: 1 PID: 1773 Comm: kworker/1:1H Not tainted 4.1.11-rc1 #1 > > > Workqueue: rpciod ffffffff8164fff0 > > > task: ffff8810374deba0 ti: ffff8810374df150 task.ti: ffff8810374df150 > > > RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff811d0cf3>] [<ffffffff811d0cf3>] locks_get_lock_context+0x3/0xc0 > > > RSP: 0000:ffff881036007bb0 EFLAGS: 00010246 > > > RAX: ffff881036007c30 RBX: ffff881001981880 RCX: 0000000000000002 > > > RDX: 00000000000006ed RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: 0000000000000000 > > > RBP: ffff881036007c08 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001 > > > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff88101db69948 R12: ffff8810019818d8 > > > R13: ffff881036007bc8 R14: ffff880e225d81c0 R15: ffff881edfd2b400 > > > FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88103fc20000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > CR2: 00000000000001c8 CR3: 000000000169b000 CR4: 00000000000606f0 > > > Stack: > > > ffffffff811d2710 ffff881036007bc8 ffffffff819f1af1 ffff881036007bc8 > > > ffff881036007bc8 ffff881036007c08 ffff881001981880 ffff8810019818d8 > > > ffff881036007c48 ffff880e225d81c0 ffff881edfd2b400 ffff881036007c88 > > > Call Trace: > > > [<ffffffff811d2710>] ? flock_lock_file+0x30/0x270 > > > [<ffffffff811d3ad1>] flock_lock_file_wait+0x41/0xf0 > > > [<ffffffff8168be66>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x26/0x40 > > > [<ffffffff81268de9>] do_vfs_lock+0x19/0x40 > > > [<ffffffff812695cc>] nfs4_locku_done+0x5c/0xf0 > > > [<ffffffff8164f3f4>] rpc_exit_task+0x34/0xb0 > > > [<ffffffff8164fcd9>] __rpc_execute+0x79/0x390 > > > [<ffffffff81650000>] rpc_async_schedule+0x10/0x20 > > > [<ffffffff81086095>] process_one_work+0x1a5/0x450 > > > [<ffffffff81086024>] ? process_one_work+0x134/0x450 > > > [<ffffffff8108638b>] worker_thread+0x4b/0x4a0 > > > [<ffffffff81086340>] ? process_one_work+0x450/0x450 > > > [<ffffffff81086340>] ? process_one_work+0x450/0x450 > > > [<ffffffff8108d777>] kthread+0xf7/0x110 > > > [<ffffffff8108d680>] ? __kthread_parkme+0xa0/0xa0 > > > [<ffffffff8168ce3e>] ret_from_fork+0x3e/0x70 > > > [<ffffffff8108d680>] ? __kthread_parkme+0xa0/0xa0 > > > Code: 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 55 48 89 e5 48 09 c1 ff d1 5d 85 c0 0f 95 c0 0f b6 c0 eb b9 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 83 fe 02 <48> 8b 87 c8 01 00 00 0f 84 a0 00 00 00 48 85 c0 0f 85 97 00 00 > > > RIP [<ffffffff811d0cf3>] locks_get_lock_context+0x3/0xc0 > > > RSP <ffff881036007bb0> > > > CR2: 00000000000001c8 > > > ---[ end trace 2da9686dda1b5574 ]--- > > > > As mentioned in another thread by Jeff, I applied the following commits: > > > > bcd7f78 locks: have flock_lock_file take an inode pointer instead of a filp > > 29d01b2 locks: new helpers - flock_lock_inode_wait and posix_lock_inode_wait > > ee296d7 locks: inline posix_lock_file_wait and flock_lock_file_wait > > 83bfff2 nfs4: have do_vfs_lock take an inode pointer > > > > I will see if I get the same issue again. > -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
pgp9hHwrlMtxQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
