3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> commit 42a5cf46cd56f46267d2a9fcf2655f4078cd3042 upstream. An inactive timer's base can refer to a offline cpu's base. In the current code, cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period that another thread is trying to modify an inactive timer on that CPU with holding its timer base lock, then the lock will be reinitialized under its feet. This leads to following SPIN_BUG(). <0> BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#3, kworker/u:3/1466 <0> lock: 0xe3ebe000, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kworker/u:3/1466, .owner_cpu: 1 <4> [<c0013dc4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x11c) from [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) <4> [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) from [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) <4> [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) <4> [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) from [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) <4> [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) from [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) <4> [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) from [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) <4> [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) from [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) <4> [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) from [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) <4> [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) from [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) <4> [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) from [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) <4> [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) from [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) <4> [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) from [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) <4> [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) from [<c000ea80>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8) As an example, this particular crash occurred when CPU #3 is executing mod_timer() on an inactive timer whose base is refered to offlined CPU #2. The code locked the timer_base corresponding to CPU #2. Before it could proceed, CPU #2 came online and reinitialized the spinlock corresponding to its base. Thus now CPU #3 held a lock which was reinitialized. When CPU #3 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base corresponding to CPU #2, we hit the above SPIN_BUG(). CPU #0 CPU #3 CPU #2 ------ ------- ------- ..... ...... <Offline> mod_timer() lock_timer_base spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock) cpu_up(2) ..... ...... init_timers_cpu() .... ..... spin_lock_init(&base->lock) ..... spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock) ...... <spin_bug> Allocation of per_cpu timer vector bases is done only once under "tvec_base_done[]" check. In the current code, spinlock_initialization of base->lock isn't under this check. When a CPU is up each time the base lock is reinitialized. Move base spinlock initialization under the check. Signed-off-by: Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1368520142-4136-1-git-send-email-tirupath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/timer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/kernel/timer.c +++ b/kernel/timer.c @@ -1630,12 +1630,12 @@ static int __cpuinit init_timers_cpu(int boot_done = 1; base = &boot_tvec_bases; } + spin_lock_init(&base->lock); tvec_base_done[cpu] = 1; } else { base = per_cpu(tvec_bases, cpu); } - spin_lock_init(&base->lock); for (j = 0; j < TVN_SIZE; j++) { INIT_LIST_HEAD(base->tv5.vec + j); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html