Hi
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:25 PM Trond Myklebust trondmy@hammerspace.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2022, at 13:31, Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
[You don't often get email from michael@amarulasolutions.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Hi Neil
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:29:55PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release. There are 338 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 Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000. Anything received after that time might be too late.
The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc... or in the git tree and branch at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y and the diffstat can be found below.
thanks,
greg k-h
Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1].
[ 0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033] [ 0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156 [ 0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2)
<trim> [ 18.499895] ================================ [ 18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state [ 18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted [ 18.511944] -------------------------------- [ 18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage. [ 18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: [ 18.527826] (____ptrval____) (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0 [ 18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at: [ 18.541543] lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c
Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and spin_unlock_bh().
We get the same deadlock or similar one and we think that can be connected to this thread on 4.19.243. For us is a bit difficult to hit but we are going to apply this change
net: sunrpc: Fix deadlock in xprt_destroy
Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and spin_unlock_bh().
Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com
net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c index d05fa7c36d00..b1abf4848bbc 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c @@ -1550,9 +1550,9 @@ static void xprt_destroy(struct rpc_xprt *xprt) * is cleared. We use ->transport_lock to ensure the mod_timer() * can only run *before* del_time_sync(), never after. */
spin_lock(&xprt->transport_lock);
spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock); del_timer_sync(&xprt->timer);
spin_unlock(&xprt->transport_lock);
spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock); /* * Destroy sockets etc from the system workqueue so they can—
Agreed. When backporting to kernels that are older than 5.3.x, the transport lock needs to be taken using the bh-safe spin lock variants.
Reviewed-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com mailto:trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
Seems already applied, but for some reason I miss it. I will re-align to stable again
Michael
Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com