On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 06:47:05AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/22/19 2:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.86 release.
> > There are 220 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 Sun, 24 Nov 2019 09:59:19 +0000.
> > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >
>
> I see the following warning (at least for arm64, ppc64, and x86_64).
> This seems to be caused by "idr: Fix idr_get_next race with idr_remove".
> v4.14.y is also affected. Mainline and v5.3.y are not affected.
>
> Guenter
>
> ---
> [ 3.897800] NetLabel: Initializing
> [ 3.897944] NetLabel: domain hash size = 128
> [ 3.898044] NetLabel: protocols = UNLABELED CIPSOv4 CALIPSO
> [ 3.898995]
> [ 3.899135] =============================
> [ 3.899235] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [ 3.899479] 4.19.86-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> [ 3.899595] -----------------------------
> [ 3.899772] include/linux/radix-tree.h:241 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> [ 3.899939]
> [ 3.899939] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 3.899939]
> [ 3.900159]
> [ 3.900159] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> [ 3.900347] 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
> [ 3.900479] #0: (____ptrval____) (cb_lock){+.+.}, at: genl_register_family+0xab/0x717
> [ 3.901498] #1: (____ptrval____) (genl_mutex){+.+.}, at: genl_register_family+0xb9/0x717
> [ 3.901860]
> [ 3.901860] stack backtrace:
> [ 3.902136] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.19.86-rc1+ #1
> [ 3.902295] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.12.1-0-ga5cab58e9a3f-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> [ 3.902633] Call Trace:
> [ 3.902633] dump_stack+0x71/0xa0
> [ 3.902633] idr_get_next+0x133/0x160
> [ 3.902633] ? genl_register_family+0xab/0x717
> [ 3.902633] ? do_early_param+0x89/0x89
> [ 3.902633] genl_family_find_byname+0x4e/0x80
> [ 3.902633] genl_register_family+0xc1/0x717
> [ 3.902633] ? do_early_param+0x89/0x89
> [ 3.902633] ? netlbl_netlink_init+0x21/0x21
> [ 3.902633] netlbl_netlink_init+0x5/0x21
> [ 3.902633] netlbl_init+0x4a/0x74
> [ 3.902633] do_one_initcall+0x58/0x2ae
> [ 3.902633] ? do_early_param+0x89/0x89
> [ 3.902633] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x6f/0x80
> [ 3.902633] ? do_early_param+0x89/0x89
> [ 3.902633] kernel_init_freeable+0x1bc/0x24b
> [ 3.902633] ? rest_init+0x176/0x176
> [ 3.902633] kernel_init+0x5/0x101
> [ 3.902633] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>
Willy, this looks like something from your patch, is it to be expected?
thanks,
greg k-h
