| Message ID | 1573679785-21068-1-git-send-email-cai@lca.pw (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 1b710b1b10eff9d46666064ea25f079f70bc67a8 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | char/random: silence a lockdep splat with printk() | expand |
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote: > > From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > > Sergey didn't like the locking order, > > uart_port->lock -> tty_port->lock > > uart_write (uart_port->lock) > __uart_start > pl011_start_tx > pl011_tx_chars > uart_write_wakeup > tty_port_tty_wakeup > tty_port_default > tty_port_tty_get (tty_port->lock) > > but those code is so old, and I have no clue how to de-couple it after > checking other locks in the splat. There is an onging effort to make all > printk() as deferred, so until that happens, workaround it for now as a > short-term fix. Sergey, could we have a ACK from you so Ted might be able to merge? > > LTP: starting iogen01 (export LTPROOT; rwtest -N iogen01 -i 120s -s > read,write -Da -Dv -n 2 500b:$TMPDIR/doio.f1.$$ > 1000b:$TMPDIR/doio.f2.$$) > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > ------------------------------------------------------ > doio/49441 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff008b7cff7290 (&(&zone->lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: rmqueue+0x138/0x2050 > > but task is already holding lock: > 60ff000822352818 (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: start_flush_work+0xd8/0x3f0 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #4 (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > __queue_work+0x4b4/0xa10 > queue_work_on+0xac/0x11c > tty_schedule_flip+0x84/0xbc > tty_flip_buffer_push+0x1c/0x28 > pty_write+0x98/0xd0 > n_tty_write+0x450/0x60c > tty_write+0x338/0x474 > __vfs_write+0x88/0x214 > vfs_write+0x12c/0x1a4 > redirected_tty_write+0x90/0xdc > do_loop_readv_writev+0x140/0x180 > do_iter_write+0xe0/0x10c > vfs_writev+0x134/0x1cc > do_writev+0xbc/0x130 > __arm64_sys_writev+0x58/0x8c > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > -> #3 (&(&port->lock)->rlock){-.-.}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x7c/0x9c > tty_port_tty_get+0x24/0x60 > tty_port_default_wakeup+0x1c/0x3c > tty_port_tty_wakeup+0x34/0x40 > uart_write_wakeup+0x28/0x44 > pl011_tx_chars+0x1b8/0x270 > pl011_start_tx+0x24/0x70 > __uart_start+0x5c/0x68 > uart_write+0x164/0x1c8 > do_output_char+0x33c/0x348 > n_tty_write+0x4bc/0x60c > tty_write+0x338/0x474 > redirected_tty_write+0xc0/0xdc > do_loop_readv_writev+0x140/0x180 > do_iter_write+0xe0/0x10c > vfs_writev+0x134/0x1cc > do_writev+0xbc/0x130 > __arm64_sys_writev+0x58/0x8c > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > -> #2 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > pl011_console_write+0xec/0x2cc > console_unlock+0x794/0x96c > vprintk_emit+0x260/0x31c > vprintk_default+0x54/0x7c > vprintk_func+0x218/0x254 > printk+0x7c/0xa4 > register_console+0x734/0x7b0 > uart_add_one_port+0x734/0x834 > pl011_register_port+0x6c/0xac > sbsa_uart_probe+0x234/0x2ec > platform_drv_probe+0xd4/0x124 > really_probe+0x250/0x71c > driver_probe_device+0xb4/0x200 > __device_attach_driver+0xd8/0x188 > bus_for_each_drv+0xbc/0x110 > __device_attach+0x120/0x220 > device_initial_probe+0x20/0x2c > bus_probe_device+0x54/0x100 > device_add+0xae8/0xc2c > platform_device_add+0x278/0x3b8 > platform_device_register_full+0x238/0x2ac > acpi_create_platform_device+0x2dc/0x3a8 > acpi_bus_attach+0x390/0x3cc > acpi_bus_attach+0x108/0x3cc > acpi_bus_attach+0x108/0x3cc > acpi_bus_attach+0x108/0x3cc > acpi_bus_scan+0x7c/0xb0 > acpi_scan_init+0xe4/0x304 > acpi_init+0x100/0x114 > do_one_initcall+0x348/0x6a0 > do_initcall_level+0x190/0x1fc > do_basic_setup+0x34/0x4c > kernel_init_freeable+0x19c/0x260 > kernel_init+0x18/0x338 > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > -> #1 (console_owner){-...}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > console_lock_spinning_enable+0x6c/0x7c > console_unlock+0x4f8/0x96c > vprintk_emit+0x260/0x31c > vprintk_default+0x54/0x7c > vprintk_func+0x218/0x254 > printk+0x7c/0xa4 > get_random_u64+0x1c4/0x1dc > shuffle_pick_tail+0x40/0xac > __free_one_page+0x424/0x710 > free_one_page+0x70/0x120 > __free_pages_ok+0x61c/0xa94 > __free_pages_core+0x1bc/0x294 > memblock_free_pages+0x38/0x48 > __free_pages_memory+0xcc/0xfc > __free_memory_core+0x70/0x78 > free_low_memory_core_early+0x148/0x18c > memblock_free_all+0x18/0x54 > mem_init+0xb4/0x17c > mm_init+0x14/0x38 > start_kernel+0x19c/0x530 > > -> #0 (&(&zone->lock)->rlock){..-.}: > validate_chain+0xf6c/0x2e2c > __lock_acquire+0x868/0xc2c > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > rmqueue+0x138/0x2050 > get_page_from_freelist+0x474/0x688 > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3b4/0x18dc > alloc_pages_current+0xd0/0xe0 > alloc_slab_page+0x2b4/0x5e0 > new_slab+0xc8/0x6bc > ___slab_alloc+0x3b8/0x640 > kmem_cache_alloc+0x4b4/0x588 > __debug_object_init+0x778/0x8b4 > debug_object_init_on_stack+0x40/0x50 > start_flush_work+0x16c/0x3f0 > __flush_work+0xb8/0x124 > flush_work+0x20/0x30 > xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x88/0x204 [xfs] > xfs_log_force_lsn+0x128/0x1b8 [xfs] > xfs_file_fsync+0x3c4/0x488 [xfs] > vfs_fsync_range+0xb0/0xd0 > generic_write_sync+0x80/0xa0 [xfs] > xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0x66c/0x6e4 [xfs] > xfs_file_write_iter+0x1a0/0x218 [xfs] > __vfs_write+0x1cc/0x214 > vfs_write+0x12c/0x1a4 > ksys_write+0xb0/0x120 > __arm64_sys_write+0x54/0x88 > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Chain exists of: > &(&zone->lock)->rlock --> &(&port->lock)->rlock --> &pool->lock/1 > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(&pool->lock/1); > lock(&(&port->lock)->rlock); > lock(&pool->lock/1); > lock(&(&zone->lock)->rlock); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 4 locks held by doio/49441: > #0: a0ff00886fc27408 (sb_writers#8){.+.+}, at: vfs_write+0x118/0x1a4 > #1: 8fff00080810dfe0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}, at: > xfs_ilock+0x2a8/0x300 [xfs] > #2: ffff9000129f2390 (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: > rcu_lock_acquire+0x8/0x38 > #3: 60ff000822352818 (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: > start_flush_work+0xd8/0x3f0 > > stack backtrace: > CPU: 48 PID: 49441 Comm: doio Tainted: G W > Hardware name: HPE Apollo 70 /C01_APACHE_MB , BIOS > L50_5.13_1.11 06/18/2019 > Call trace: > dump_backtrace+0x0/0x248 > show_stack+0x20/0x2c > dump_stack+0xe8/0x150 > print_circular_bug+0x368/0x380 > check_noncircular+0x28c/0x294 > validate_chain+0xf6c/0x2e2c > __lock_acquire+0x868/0xc2c > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > rmqueue+0x138/0x2050 > get_page_from_freelist+0x474/0x688 > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3b4/0x18dc > alloc_pages_current+0xd0/0xe0 > alloc_slab_page+0x2b4/0x5e0 > new_slab+0xc8/0x6bc > ___slab_alloc+0x3b8/0x640 > kmem_cache_alloc+0x4b4/0x588 > __debug_object_init+0x778/0x8b4 > debug_object_init_on_stack+0x40/0x50 > start_flush_work+0x16c/0x3f0 > __flush_work+0xb8/0x124 > flush_work+0x20/0x30 > xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x88/0x204 [xfs] > xfs_log_force_lsn+0x128/0x1b8 [xfs] > xfs_file_fsync+0x3c4/0x488 [xfs] > vfs_fsync_range+0xb0/0xd0 > generic_write_sync+0x80/0xa0 [xfs] > xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0x66c/0x6e4 [xfs] > xfs_file_write_iter+0x1a0/0x218 [xfs] > __vfs_write+0x1cc/0x214 > vfs_write+0x12c/0x1a4 > ksys_write+0xb0/0x120 > __arm64_sys_write+0x54/0x88 > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > [cai@lca.pw: add a commit log.] > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> > --- > > Sergey, please let us know if you are fine with the Signed-off-by. > > drivers/char/random.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c > index 46afd14facb7..b90086c9836f 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/random.c > +++ b/drivers/char/random.c > @@ -1688,8 +1688,9 @@ static void _warn_unseeded_randomness(const char *func_name, void *caller, > print_once = true; > #endif > if (__ratelimit(&unseeded_warning)) > - pr_notice("random: %s called from %pS with crng_init=%d\n", > - func_name, caller, crng_init); > + printk_deferred(KERN_NOTICE "random: %s called from %pS " > + "with crng_init=%d\n", func_name, caller, > + crng_init); > } > > /* > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
Hi, On (19/12/03 13:46), Qian Cai wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote: > > > > From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > > > > Sergey didn't like the locking order, > > > > uart_port->lock -> tty_port->lock > > > > uart_write (uart_port->lock) > > __uart_start > > pl011_start_tx > > pl011_tx_chars > > uart_write_wakeup > > tty_port_tty_wakeup > > tty_port_default > > tty_port_tty_get (tty_port->lock) > > > > but those code is so old, and I have no clue how to de-couple it after > > checking other locks in the splat. There is an onging effort to make all > > printk() as deferred, so until that happens, workaround it for now as a > > short-term fix. > > Sergey, could we have a ACK from you so Ted might be able to merge? Not sure if I can ACK it, but overall it makes sense to use deferred printk there. [..] > > > [cai@lca.pw: add a commit log.] > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> > > --- > > > > Sergey, please let us know if you are fine with the Signed-off-by. A 'Reviewed-by' will suffice. Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> -ss
> On Dec 4, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote: > > A 'Reviewed-by' will suffice. > > Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Ted, could you take a look at this trivial patch?
> On Dec 16, 2019, at 8:52 PM, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 4, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A 'Reviewed-by' will suffice. >> >> Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> > > Ted, could you take a look at this trivial patch? Not sure if Ted is still interested in maintaining this file as he had no feedback for more than a month. The problem is that this will render the lockdep useless for a general debugging tool as it will disable the lockdep early in the process. Could Andrew (since the free page shuffle will call get_random) or Linus pick this up directly with the approval from one of the printk() maintainers above? https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1573679785-21068-1-git-send-email-cai@lca.pw/
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 10:42:51 -0500 Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 8:52 PM, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Dec 4, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> A 'Reviewed-by' will suffice. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> > > > > Ted, could you take a look at this trivial patch? > > Not sure if Ted is still interested in maintaining this file as he had no feedback for more > than a month. The problem is that this will render the lockdep useless for a general > debugging tool as it will disable the lockdep early in the process. > How would this disable lockdep early in the process? The patch is just changing pr_notice() to printk_deferred() correct? -- Steve
> On Jan 2, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > How would this disable lockdep early in the process? The patch is just > changing pr_notice() to printk_deferred() correct? Yes, I meant without this patch. Lockdep will easily generate this potential deadlock warning early after boot and then disable itself.
On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 10:42:51AM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > > Not sure if Ted is still interested in maintaining this file as he had no feedback for more > than a month. The problem is that this will render the lockdep useless for a general > debugging tool as it will disable the lockdep early in the process. > > Could Andrew (since the free page shuffle will call get_random) or Linus pick this up > directly with the approval from one of the printk() maintainers above? Sorry, things have been busy with the Chistmas holidays and getting the ext4 tree ready for the merge window. I'll take a look at this in the next day or two. - Ted
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:16:25PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > > Sergey didn't like the locking order, > > uart_port->lock -> tty_port->lock > > uart_write (uart_port->lock) > __uart_start > pl011_start_tx > pl011_tx_chars > uart_write_wakeup > tty_port_tty_wakeup > tty_port_default > tty_port_tty_get (tty_port->lock) > > but those code is so old, and I have no clue how to de-couple it after > checking other locks in the splat. There is an onging effort to make all > printk() as deferred, so until that happens, workaround it for now as a > short-term fix. Applied, thanks. - Ted
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:16:25PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > > Sergey didn't like the locking order, > > uart_port->lock -> tty_port->lock > > uart_write (uart_port->lock) > __uart_start > pl011_start_tx > pl011_tx_chars > uart_write_wakeup > tty_port_tty_wakeup > tty_port_default > tty_port_tty_get (tty_port->lock) > > but those code is so old, and I have no clue how to de-couple it after > checking other locks in the splat. There is an onging effort to make all > printk() as deferred, so until that happens, workaround it for now as a > short-term fix. Starting with v5.4.22 I noticed 'dmesg -w' stopped working on some machines. dmesg will follow console output for a few seconds, then it stops. strace indicates dmesg is blocked in read() on the /dev/kmsg fd. If a new dmesg process starts, it gives messages for a few seconds, then also stops. rsyslog's kernel logging is similarly affected. Bisection points to this patch (now known as 1b710b1b10eff9d46666064ea25f079f70bc67a8 upstream). I can't reproduce the problem on a test VM, and some machines are running v5.4.22..v5.4.26 with no dmesg problems. It seems there is some magic in the startup sequence of affected machines. This code isn't executed after RNG is seeded, so it would have to get its bad stuff done before that happens. Reverting commit 1b710b1b10eff9d46666064ea25f079f70bc67a8 fixes the dmesg regression on 5.4.26. It might put the original lockdep bug back, but on machines running stable kernels, I prefer randomly broken lockdep over repeatably broken dmesg. > LTP: starting iogen01 (export LTPROOT; rwtest -N iogen01 -i 120s -s > read,write -Da -Dv -n 2 500b:$TMPDIR/doio.f1.$$ > 1000b:$TMPDIR/doio.f2.$$) > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > ------------------------------------------------------ > doio/49441 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff008b7cff7290 (&(&zone->lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: rmqueue+0x138/0x2050 > > but task is already holding lock: > 60ff000822352818 (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: start_flush_work+0xd8/0x3f0 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #4 (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > __queue_work+0x4b4/0xa10 > queue_work_on+0xac/0x11c > tty_schedule_flip+0x84/0xbc > tty_flip_buffer_push+0x1c/0x28 > pty_write+0x98/0xd0 > n_tty_write+0x450/0x60c > tty_write+0x338/0x474 > __vfs_write+0x88/0x214 > vfs_write+0x12c/0x1a4 > redirected_tty_write+0x90/0xdc > do_loop_readv_writev+0x140/0x180 > do_iter_write+0xe0/0x10c > vfs_writev+0x134/0x1cc > do_writev+0xbc/0x130 > __arm64_sys_writev+0x58/0x8c > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > -> #3 (&(&port->lock)->rlock){-.-.}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x7c/0x9c > tty_port_tty_get+0x24/0x60 > tty_port_default_wakeup+0x1c/0x3c > tty_port_tty_wakeup+0x34/0x40 > uart_write_wakeup+0x28/0x44 > pl011_tx_chars+0x1b8/0x270 > pl011_start_tx+0x24/0x70 > __uart_start+0x5c/0x68 > uart_write+0x164/0x1c8 > do_output_char+0x33c/0x348 > n_tty_write+0x4bc/0x60c > tty_write+0x338/0x474 > redirected_tty_write+0xc0/0xdc > do_loop_readv_writev+0x140/0x180 > do_iter_write+0xe0/0x10c > vfs_writev+0x134/0x1cc > do_writev+0xbc/0x130 > __arm64_sys_writev+0x58/0x8c > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > -> #2 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > pl011_console_write+0xec/0x2cc > console_unlock+0x794/0x96c > vprintk_emit+0x260/0x31c > vprintk_default+0x54/0x7c > vprintk_func+0x218/0x254 > printk+0x7c/0xa4 > register_console+0x734/0x7b0 > uart_add_one_port+0x734/0x834 > pl011_register_port+0x6c/0xac > sbsa_uart_probe+0x234/0x2ec > platform_drv_probe+0xd4/0x124 > really_probe+0x250/0x71c > driver_probe_device+0xb4/0x200 > __device_attach_driver+0xd8/0x188 > bus_for_each_drv+0xbc/0x110 > __device_attach+0x120/0x220 > device_initial_probe+0x20/0x2c > bus_probe_device+0x54/0x100 > device_add+0xae8/0xc2c > platform_device_add+0x278/0x3b8 > platform_device_register_full+0x238/0x2ac > acpi_create_platform_device+0x2dc/0x3a8 > acpi_bus_attach+0x390/0x3cc > acpi_bus_attach+0x108/0x3cc > acpi_bus_attach+0x108/0x3cc > acpi_bus_attach+0x108/0x3cc > acpi_bus_scan+0x7c/0xb0 > acpi_scan_init+0xe4/0x304 > acpi_init+0x100/0x114 > do_one_initcall+0x348/0x6a0 > do_initcall_level+0x190/0x1fc > do_basic_setup+0x34/0x4c > kernel_init_freeable+0x19c/0x260 > kernel_init+0x18/0x338 > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > -> #1 (console_owner){-...}: > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > console_lock_spinning_enable+0x6c/0x7c > console_unlock+0x4f8/0x96c > vprintk_emit+0x260/0x31c > vprintk_default+0x54/0x7c > vprintk_func+0x218/0x254 > printk+0x7c/0xa4 > get_random_u64+0x1c4/0x1dc > shuffle_pick_tail+0x40/0xac > __free_one_page+0x424/0x710 > free_one_page+0x70/0x120 > __free_pages_ok+0x61c/0xa94 > __free_pages_core+0x1bc/0x294 > memblock_free_pages+0x38/0x48 > __free_pages_memory+0xcc/0xfc > __free_memory_core+0x70/0x78 > free_low_memory_core_early+0x148/0x18c > memblock_free_all+0x18/0x54 > mem_init+0xb4/0x17c > mm_init+0x14/0x38 > start_kernel+0x19c/0x530 > > -> #0 (&(&zone->lock)->rlock){..-.}: > validate_chain+0xf6c/0x2e2c > __lock_acquire+0x868/0xc2c > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > rmqueue+0x138/0x2050 > get_page_from_freelist+0x474/0x688 > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3b4/0x18dc > alloc_pages_current+0xd0/0xe0 > alloc_slab_page+0x2b4/0x5e0 > new_slab+0xc8/0x6bc > ___slab_alloc+0x3b8/0x640 > kmem_cache_alloc+0x4b4/0x588 > __debug_object_init+0x778/0x8b4 > debug_object_init_on_stack+0x40/0x50 > start_flush_work+0x16c/0x3f0 > __flush_work+0xb8/0x124 > flush_work+0x20/0x30 > xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x88/0x204 [xfs] > xfs_log_force_lsn+0x128/0x1b8 [xfs] > xfs_file_fsync+0x3c4/0x488 [xfs] > vfs_fsync_range+0xb0/0xd0 > generic_write_sync+0x80/0xa0 [xfs] > xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0x66c/0x6e4 [xfs] > xfs_file_write_iter+0x1a0/0x218 [xfs] > __vfs_write+0x1cc/0x214 > vfs_write+0x12c/0x1a4 > ksys_write+0xb0/0x120 > __arm64_sys_write+0x54/0x88 > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Chain exists of: > &(&zone->lock)->rlock --> &(&port->lock)->rlock --> &pool->lock/1 > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(&pool->lock/1); > lock(&(&port->lock)->rlock); > lock(&pool->lock/1); > lock(&(&zone->lock)->rlock); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 4 locks held by doio/49441: > #0: a0ff00886fc27408 (sb_writers#8){.+.+}, at: vfs_write+0x118/0x1a4 > #1: 8fff00080810dfe0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}, at: > xfs_ilock+0x2a8/0x300 [xfs] > #2: ffff9000129f2390 (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: > rcu_lock_acquire+0x8/0x38 > #3: 60ff000822352818 (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: > start_flush_work+0xd8/0x3f0 > > stack backtrace: > CPU: 48 PID: 49441 Comm: doio Tainted: G W > Hardware name: HPE Apollo 70 /C01_APACHE_MB , BIOS > L50_5.13_1.11 06/18/2019 > Call trace: > dump_backtrace+0x0/0x248 > show_stack+0x20/0x2c > dump_stack+0xe8/0x150 > print_circular_bug+0x368/0x380 > check_noncircular+0x28c/0x294 > validate_chain+0xf6c/0x2e2c > __lock_acquire+0x868/0xc2c > lock_acquire+0x320/0x360 > _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80 > rmqueue+0x138/0x2050 > get_page_from_freelist+0x474/0x688 > __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3b4/0x18dc > alloc_pages_current+0xd0/0xe0 > alloc_slab_page+0x2b4/0x5e0 > new_slab+0xc8/0x6bc > ___slab_alloc+0x3b8/0x640 > kmem_cache_alloc+0x4b4/0x588 > __debug_object_init+0x778/0x8b4 > debug_object_init_on_stack+0x40/0x50 > start_flush_work+0x16c/0x3f0 > __flush_work+0xb8/0x124 > flush_work+0x20/0x30 > xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x88/0x204 [xfs] > xfs_log_force_lsn+0x128/0x1b8 [xfs] > xfs_file_fsync+0x3c4/0x488 [xfs] > vfs_fsync_range+0xb0/0xd0 > generic_write_sync+0x80/0xa0 [xfs] > xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0x66c/0x6e4 [xfs] > xfs_file_write_iter+0x1a0/0x218 [xfs] > __vfs_write+0x1cc/0x214 > vfs_write+0x12c/0x1a4 > ksys_write+0xb0/0x120 > __arm64_sys_write+0x54/0x88 > el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 > el0_sync_handler+0x150/0x250 > el0_sync+0x164/0x180 > > [cai@lca.pw: add a commit log.] > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> > --- > > Sergey, please let us know if you are fine with the Signed-off-by. > > drivers/char/random.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c > index 46afd14facb7..b90086c9836f 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/random.c > +++ b/drivers/char/random.c > @@ -1688,8 +1688,9 @@ static void _warn_unseeded_randomness(const char *func_name, void *caller, > print_once = true; > #endif > if (__ratelimit(&unseeded_warning)) > - pr_notice("random: %s called from %pS with crng_init=%d\n", > - func_name, caller, crng_init); > + printk_deferred(KERN_NOTICE "random: %s called from %pS " > + "with crng_init=%d\n", func_name, caller, > + crng_init); > } > > /* > -- > 1.8.3.1 >
On (20/03/24 11:13), Zygo Blaxell wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:16:25PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > > From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> > > > > Sergey didn't like the locking order, > > > > uart_port->lock -> tty_port->lock > > > > uart_write (uart_port->lock) > > __uart_start > > pl011_start_tx > > pl011_tx_chars > > uart_write_wakeup > > tty_port_tty_wakeup > > tty_port_default > > tty_port_tty_get (tty_port->lock) > > > > but those code is so old, and I have no clue how to de-couple it after > > checking other locks in the splat. There is an onging effort to make all > > printk() as deferred, so until that happens, workaround it for now as a > > short-term fix. > > Starting with v5.4.22 I noticed 'dmesg -w' stopped working on some > machines. dmesg will follow console output for a few seconds, then it > stops. strace indicates dmesg is blocked in read() on the /dev/kmsg fd. > If a new dmesg process starts, it gives messages for a few seconds, > then also stops. rsyslog's kernel logging is similarly affected. > > Bisection points to this patch (now known as > 1b710b1b10eff9d46666064ea25f079f70bc67a8 upstream). I can't reproduce > the problem on a test VM, and some machines are running v5.4.22..v5.4.26 > with no dmesg problems. It seems there is some magic in the startup > sequence of affected machines. This code isn't executed after RNG is > seeded, so it would have to get its bad stuff done before that happens. > > Reverting commit 1b710b1b10eff9d46666064ea25f079f70bc67a8 fixes the > dmesg regression on 5.4.26. It might put the original lockdep bug back, > but on machines running stable kernels, I prefer randomly broken lockdep > over repeatably broken dmesg. This should fix the problem https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200303113002.63089-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com -ss
diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c index 46afd14facb7..b90086c9836f 100644 --- a/drivers/char/random.c +++ b/drivers/char/random.c @@ -1688,8 +1688,9 @@ static void _warn_unseeded_randomness(const char *func_name, void *caller, print_once = true; #endif if (__ratelimit(&unseeded_warning)) - pr_notice("random: %s called from %pS with crng_init=%d\n", - func_name, caller, crng_init); + printk_deferred(KERN_NOTICE "random: %s called from %pS " + "with crng_init=%d\n", func_name, caller, + crng_init); } /*