| Message ID | a1464fd9d04361952cbbc031622c3259358eb8ac.1503925436.git.sbrivio@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:05:23 +0200 Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> wrote: > Internal error codes happen to be positive, thus the PCI driver > core won't treat them as failure, but we do. This would cause a > crash later on as lpfc_pci_remove_one() is called (e.g. as > shutdown function). > > Fixes: 6d368e532168 ("[SCSI] lpfc 8.3.24: Add resource extent support") > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> > --- > drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c > index 491aa95eb0f6..38cc2b5bb5a2 100644 > --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c > +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c > @@ -6118,6 +6118,7 @@ lpfc_sli4_driver_resource_setup(struct lpfc_hba *phba) > "Extents and RPI headers enabled.\n"); > } > mempool_free(mboxq, phba->mbox_mem_pool); > + rc = -EIO; > goto out_free_bsmbx; > } > I didn't get feedback about this patch. Is there any issue with the submission? I think it actually fixes a quite critical issue, if initialization fails we have crashes on reboot like the one reported below [1], and should perhaps also be queued for -stable. [1] [ 568.638555] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000000000007c0 [ 568.679154] IP: lpfc_pci_remove_one+0x20/0x890 [lpfc] [ 568.704062] PGD 0 [ 568.704063] [ 568.721714] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP [ 568.736895] Modules linked in: fuse vfat msdos fat binfmt_misc xfs fcoe libfcoe libfc rpcrdma ib_isert iscsi_target_mod ib_iser ib_srpt target_core_mod ib_srp scsi_transport_srp ib_ipoib rdma_ucm ib_ucm ib_uverbs ib_umad rdma_cm ib_cm iw_cm ib_core intel_rapl x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp intel_cstate intel_uncore intel_rapl_perf sg ipmi_si hpilo ipmi_devintf pcspkr ipmi_msghandler lpc_ich ioatdma shpchp dca pcc_cpufreq acpi_cpufreq ext4 jbd2 mbcache loop nfsv3 nfs_acl nfs lockd grace fscache sd_mod 8021q garp stp llc mrp mgag200 ata_generic i2c_algo_bit pata_acpi drm_kms_helper syscopyarea sfc sysfillrect sysimgblt fb_sys_fops ttm tg3 mtd crct10dif_pclmul lpfc crc32_pclmul ata_piix drm ptp hpsa serio_raw scsi_transport_fc be2net ghash_clmulni_intel libata i2c_core scsi_transport_sas pps_core [ 569.082589] mdio wmi sunrpc xts lrw gf128mul mcryptd dm_crypt dm_round_robin dm_multipath dm_snapshot dm_bufio dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_zero dm_mod linear raid10 raid456 async_raid6_recov async_memcpy libcrc32c crc32c_intel async_pq async_xor xor async_tx raid6_pq raid1 raid0 iscsi_ibft iscsi_boot_sysfs iscsi_tcp libiscsi_tcp libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi squashfs cramfs edd ctr(E) [ 569.254181] CPU: 9 PID: 46361 Comm: reboot Tainted: G E ------------ 4.11.0-22.el7a.x86_64 #1 [ 569.301048] Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL388p Gen8, BIOS P70 12/14/2012 [ 569.332878] task: ffff880801161680 task.stack: ffffc90005140000 [ 569.362693] RIP: 0010:lpfc_pci_remove_one+0x20/0x890 [lpfc] [ 569.390275] RSP: 0018:ffffc90005143d18 EFLAGS: 00010296 [ 569.416040] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8804bd9cf000 RCX: 0000000000000000 [ 569.449874] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000246 RDI: ffff8804bd9cf000 [ 569.484402] RBP: ffffc90005143d78 R08: ffff8804bd9cf0b8 R09: 0000000000000006 [ 569.519146] R10: 0000000000000020 R11: ffffea0020975b80 R12: ffff8804bd9cf000 [ 569.553408] R13: ffffffffa057a2a0 R14: ffff8804bd9cf100 R15: 00000000fee1dead [ 569.588474] FS: 00007f99fe258880(0000) GS:ffff88083f4c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 569.628288] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 569.656916] CR2: 00000000000007c0 CR3: 0000000825d91000 CR4: 00000000000406e0 [ 569.693185] Call Trace: [ 569.705044] pci_device_shutdown+0x36/0x70 [ 569.725702] device_shutdown+0xdf/0x190 [ 569.744657] kernel_restart_prepare+0x36/0x40 [ 569.767099] kernel_restart+0x12/0x60 [ 569.784916] SYSC_reboot+0x1f3/0x220 [ 569.802649] ? __alloc_fd+0x46/0x170 [ 569.819539] ? vfs_writev+0x3c/0x50 [ 569.836206] ? do_writev+0x61/0xf0 [ 569.852730] SyS_reboot+0xe/0x10 [ 569.868375] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1a/0xa9 [ 569.890588] RIP: 0033:0x7f99fd065a56 [ 569.907894] RSP: 002b:00007ffc8c5e2b58 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000a9 [ 569.944700] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00000000ffffff91 RCX: 00007f99fd065a56 [ 569.978659] RDX: 0000000001234567 RSI: 0000000028121969 RDI: fffffffffee1dead [ 570.013272] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 00005583f9de32a0 R09: 00007ffc8c5e2220 [ 570.048039] R10: 0000000000000024 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 00005583f9d6ef13 [ 570.082565] R13: 00007ffc8c5e2e20 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 [ 570.116914] Code: 90 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 66 66 66 90 55 48 89 e5 41 57 41 56 41 55 41 54 53 48 89 fb 48 83 ec 38 48 8b 87 38 01 00 00 <4c> 8b b0 c0 07 00 00 48 89 45 c0 45 0f b6 86 00 08 00 00 41 80 [ 570.209034] RIP: lpfc_pci_remove_one+0x20/0x890 [lpfc] RSP: ffffc90005143d18 [ 570.246076] CR2: 00000000000007c0 [ 570.261308] ---[ end trace bd8848f6cfb1d58b ]--- [ 570.283592] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception [ 570.308166] Kernel Offset: disabled [ 570.323883] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception -- Stefano
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > I didn't get feedback about this patch. Is there any issue with the > submission? > > I think it actually fixes a quite critical issue, if initialization > fails we have crashes on reboot like the one reported below [1], and > should perhaps also be queued for -stable. It seems to have slipped trough the cracks, can you please re-submit? Thanks, Johannes
On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:42:35 +0200 Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > > > I didn't get feedback about this patch. Is there any issue with the > > submission? > > > > I think it actually fixes a quite critical issue, if initialization > > fails we have crashes on reboot like the one reported below [1], and > > should perhaps also be queued for -stable. > > It seems to have slipped trough the cracks, can you please re-submit? The original submission is archived at https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=150392554622786&w=2. Before I cause any confusion... do you want me to re-submit this with the same subject? As v2 with a comment? -- Stefano
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > The original submission is archived at > https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=150392554622786&w=2. Before I cause > any confusion... do you want me to re-submit this with the same > subject? As v2 with a comment? [PATCH RESEND] should be OK
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c index 491aa95eb0f6..38cc2b5bb5a2 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c @@ -6118,6 +6118,7 @@ lpfc_sli4_driver_resource_setup(struct lpfc_hba *phba) "Extents and RPI headers enabled.\n"); } mempool_free(mboxq, phba->mbox_mem_pool); + rc = -EIO; goto out_free_bsmbx; }
Internal error codes happen to be positive, thus the PCI driver core won't treat them as failure, but we do. This would cause a crash later on as lpfc_pci_remove_one() is called (e.g. as shutdown function). Fixes: 6d368e532168 ("[SCSI] lpfc 8.3.24: Add resource extent support") Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> --- drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_init.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)