Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fix script loading synchronization issue (no workqueue approach) - #2
Open
VictorNogueiraRio wants to merge 14 commits into
Open
Fix script loading synchronization issue (no workqueue approach)#2VictorNogueiraRio wants to merge 14 commits into
VictorNogueiraRio wants to merge 14 commits into
Conversation
VictorNogueiraRio pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2020
[ Upstream commit e0f1a30 ] When, at probe time, an SCMI communication failure inhibits the capacity to query power domains states, such domains should be skipped. Registering partially initialized SCMI power domains with genpd will causes kernel panic. arm-scmi timed out in resp(caller: scmi_power_state_get+0xa4/0xd0) scmi-power-domain scmi_dev.2: failed to get state for domain 9 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000 Mem abort info: ESR = 0x96000006 EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits SET = 0, FnV = 0 EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 Data abort info: ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000006 CM = 0, WnR = 0 user pgtable: 4k pages, 48-bit VAs, pgdp=00000009f3691000 [0000000000000000] pgd=00000009f1ca0003, p4d=00000009f1ca0003, pud=00000009f35ea003, pmd=0000000000000000 Internal error: Oops: 96000006 [#1] PREEMPT SMP CPU: 2 PID: 381 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.8.0-rc1-00011-gebd118c2cca8 #2 Hardware name: ARM LTD ARM Juno Development Platform/ARM Juno Development Platform, BIOS EDK II Jan 3 2020 Internal error: Oops: 96000006 [#1] PREEMPT SMP pstate: 80000005 (Nzcv daif -PAN -UAO BTYPE=--) pc : of_genpd_add_provider_onecell+0x98/0x1f8 lr : of_genpd_add_provider_onecell+0x48/0x1f8 Call trace: of_genpd_add_provider_onecell+0x98/0x1f8 scmi_pm_domain_probe+0x174/0x1e8 scmi_dev_probe+0x90/0xe0 really_probe+0xe4/0x448 driver_probe_device+0xfc/0x168 device_driver_attach+0x7c/0x88 bind_store+0xe8/0x128 drv_attr_store+0x2c/0x40 sysfs_kf_write+0x4c/0x60 kernfs_fop_write+0x114/0x230 __vfs_write+0x24/0x50 vfs_write+0xbc/0x1e0 ksys_write+0x70/0xf8 __arm64_sys_write+0x24/0x30 el0_svc_common.constprop.3+0x94/0x160 do_el0_svc+0x2c/0x98 el0_sync_handler+0x148/0x1a8 el0_sync+0x158/0x180 Do not register any power domain that failed to be queried with genpd. Fixes: 898216c ("firmware: arm_scmi: add device power domain support using genpd") Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200619220330.12217-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
VictorNogueiraRio pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2020
commit 18c850f upstream. There's long existed a lockdep splat because we open our bdev's under the ->device_list_mutex at mount time, which acquires the bd_mutex. Usually this goes unnoticed, but if you do loopback devices at all suddenly the bd_mutex comes with a whole host of other dependencies, which results in the splat when you mount a btrfs file system. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-0.rc3.1.fc33.x86_64+debug #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ systemd-journal/509 is trying to acquire lock: ffff970831f84db0 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: ffff97083144d598 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x59/0x560 [btrfs] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #6 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}-{0:0}: __sb_start_write+0x13e/0x220 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x59/0x560 [btrfs] do_page_mkwrite+0x4f/0x130 do_wp_page+0x3b0/0x4f0 handle_mm_fault+0xf47/0x1850 do_user_addr_fault+0x1fc/0x4b0 exc_page_fault+0x88/0x300 asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #5 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}: __might_fault+0x60/0x80 _copy_from_user+0x20/0xb0 get_sg_io_hdr+0x9a/0xb0 scsi_cmd_ioctl+0x1ea/0x2f0 cdrom_ioctl+0x3c/0x12b4 sr_block_ioctl+0xa4/0xd0 block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50 ksys_ioctl+0x82/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #4 (&cd->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820 sr_block_open+0xa2/0x180 __blkdev_get+0xdd/0x550 blkdev_get+0x38/0x150 do_dentry_open+0x16b/0x3e0 path_openat+0x3c9/0xa00 do_filp_open+0x75/0x100 do_sys_openat2+0x8a/0x140 __x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #3 (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820 __blkdev_get+0x6a/0x550 blkdev_get+0x85/0x150 blkdev_get_by_path+0x2c/0x70 btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb+0x1b/0xb0 [btrfs] open_fs_devices+0x88/0x240 [btrfs] btrfs_open_devices+0x92/0xa0 [btrfs] btrfs_mount_root+0x250/0x490 [btrfs] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0 btrfs_mount+0x119/0x380 [btrfs] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 do_mount+0x8c6/0xca0 __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #2 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820 btrfs_run_dev_stats+0x36/0x420 [btrfs] commit_cowonly_roots+0x91/0x2d0 [btrfs] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x4e6/0x9f0 [btrfs] btrfs_sync_file+0x38a/0x480 [btrfs] __x64_sys_fdatasync+0x47/0x80 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #1 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x48e/0x9f0 [btrfs] btrfs_sync_file+0x38a/0x480 [btrfs] __x64_sys_fdatasync+0x47/0x80 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #0 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1241/0x20c0 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x400 __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820 btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs] start_transaction+0xd2/0x500 [btrfs] btrfs_dirty_inode+0x44/0xd0 [btrfs] file_update_time+0xc6/0x120 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0xda/0x560 [btrfs] do_page_mkwrite+0x4f/0x130 do_wp_page+0x3b0/0x4f0 handle_mm_fault+0xf47/0x1850 do_user_addr_fault+0x1fc/0x4b0 exc_page_fault+0x88/0x300 asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &fs_info->reloc_mutex --> &mm->mmap_lock#2 --> sb_pagefaults Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(sb_pagefaults); lock(&mm->mmap_lock#2); lock(sb_pagefaults); lock(&fs_info->reloc_mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by systemd-journal/509: #0: ffff97083bdec8b8 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: do_user_addr_fault+0x12e/0x4b0 #1: ffff97083144d598 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x59/0x560 [btrfs] #2: ffff97083144d6a8 (sb_internal){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: start_transaction+0x3f8/0x500 [btrfs] stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 509 Comm: systemd-journal Not tainted 5.8.0-0.rc3.1.fc33.x86_64+debug #1 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x92/0xc8 check_noncircular+0x134/0x150 __lock_acquire+0x1241/0x20c0 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x400 ? btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs] ? lock_acquire+0xb0/0x400 ? btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs] __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820 ? btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs] ? kvm_sched_clock_read+0x14/0x30 ? sched_clock+0x5/0x10 ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc/0xb0 btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs] start_transaction+0xd2/0x500 [btrfs] btrfs_dirty_inode+0x44/0xd0 [btrfs] file_update_time+0xc6/0x120 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0xda/0x560 [btrfs] ? sched_clock+0x5/0x10 do_page_mkwrite+0x4f/0x130 do_wp_page+0x3b0/0x4f0 handle_mm_fault+0xf47/0x1850 do_user_addr_fault+0x1fc/0x4b0 exc_page_fault+0x88/0x300 ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x8/0x30 asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 RIP: 0033:0x7fa3972fdbfe Code: Bad RIP value. Fix this by not holding the ->device_list_mutex at this point. The device_list_mutex exists to protect us from modifying the device list while the file system is running. However it can also be modified by doing a scan on a device. But this action is specifically protected by the uuid_mutex, which we are holding here. We cannot race with opening at this point because we have the ->s_mount lock held during the mount. Not having the ->device_list_mutex here is perfectly safe as we're not going to change the devices at this point. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+ Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> [ add some comments ] Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
VictorNogueiraRio pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2020
[ Upstream commit 5a25de6 ] Freeing chip on error may lead to an Oops at the next time the system goes to resume. Fix this by removing all snd_echo_free() calls on error. Fixes: 47b5d02 ("ALSA: Echoaudio - Add suspend support #2") Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200813074632.17022-1-dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
VictorNogueiraRio pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2020
[ Upstream commit a47bd78 ] Dave hit this splat during testing btrfs/078: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-rc6-default+ #1191 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kswapd0/75 is trying to acquire lock: ffffa040e9d04ff8 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8b0c8040 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 fs_reclaim_acquire.part.0+0x25/0x30 __kmalloc_track_caller+0x49/0x330 kstrdup+0x2e/0x60 __kernfs_new_node.constprop.0+0x44/0x250 kernfs_new_node+0x25/0x50 kernfs_create_link+0x34/0xa0 sysfs_do_create_link_sd+0x5e/0xd0 btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir+0x65/0x100 [btrfs] btrfs_init_new_device+0x44c/0x12b0 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0xc3c/0x25c0 [btrfs] ksys_ioctl+0x68/0xa0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x50/0xe0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 __mutex_lock+0xa0/0xaf0 btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x137/0x3e0 [btrfs] find_free_extent+0xb44/0xfb0 [btrfs] btrfs_reserve_extent+0x9b/0x180 [btrfs] btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xc1/0x350 [btrfs] alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60 [btrfs] __btrfs_cow_block+0x143/0x7a0 [btrfs] btrfs_cow_block+0x15f/0x310 [btrfs] push_leaf_right+0x150/0x240 [btrfs] split_leaf+0x3cd/0x6d0 [btrfs] btrfs_search_slot+0xd14/0xf70 [btrfs] btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xc0 [btrfs] __btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_items+0xb2/0x840 [btrfs] btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x10e/0x1d0 [btrfs] btrfs_work_helper+0x2f9/0x650 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x22c/0x600 worker_thread+0x50/0x3b0 kthread+0x137/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: check_prev_add+0x98/0xa20 validate_chain+0xa8c/0x2a00 __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 __mutex_lock+0xa0/0xaf0 __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] btrfs_evict_inode+0x3bf/0x560 [btrfs] evict+0xd6/0x1c0 dispose_list+0x48/0x70 prune_icache_sb+0x54/0x80 super_cache_scan+0x121/0x1a0 do_shrink_slab+0x175/0x420 shrink_slab+0xb1/0x2e0 shrink_node+0x192/0x600 balance_pgdat+0x31f/0x750 kswapd+0x206/0x510 kthread+0x137/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &delayed_node->mutex --> &fs_info->chunk_mutex --> fs_reclaim Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&delayed_node->mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by kswapd0/75: #0: ffffffff8b0c8040 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 #1: ffffffff8b0b50b8 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x54/0x2e0 #2: ffffa040e057c0e8 (&type->s_umount_key#26){++++}-{3:3}, at: trylock_super+0x16/0x50 stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 75 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc6-default+ #1191 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.12.0-59-gc9ba527-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x78/0xa0 check_noncircular+0x16f/0x190 check_prev_add+0x98/0xa20 validate_chain+0xa8c/0x2a00 __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] __mutex_lock+0xa0/0xaf0 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] ? __lock_acquire+0x56f/0xaa0 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] ? lock_acquire+0xa3/0x440 ? btrfs_evict_inode+0x138/0x560 [btrfs] ? btrfs_evict_inode+0x2fe/0x560 [btrfs] ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x310 [btrfs] btrfs_evict_inode+0x3bf/0x560 [btrfs] evict+0xd6/0x1c0 dispose_list+0x48/0x70 prune_icache_sb+0x54/0x80 super_cache_scan+0x121/0x1a0 do_shrink_slab+0x175/0x420 shrink_slab+0xb1/0x2e0 shrink_node+0x192/0x600 balance_pgdat+0x31f/0x750 kswapd+0x206/0x510 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3e/0x50 ? finish_wait+0x90/0x90 ? balance_pgdat+0x750/0x750 kthread+0x137/0x150 ? kthread_stop+0x2a0/0x2a0 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 This is because we're holding the chunk_mutex while adding this device and adding its sysfs entries. We actually hold different locks in different places when calling this function, the dev_replace semaphore for instance in dev replace, so instead of moving this call around simply wrap it's operations in NOFS. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.14+ Reported-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.