lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [origin tree SLAB corruption] BUG kmalloc-64: Poison overwritten, INFO: Allocated in bdi_alloc_work+0x2b/0x100 age=175 cpu=1 pid=3514
On Mon, Sep 14 2009, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 07:40:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > BUG kmalloc-64: Poison overwritten
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > INFO: 0xf498f6a0-0xf498f6a7. First byte 0x90 instead of 0x6b
> > > INFO: Allocated in bdi_alloc_work+0x2b/0x100 age=175 cpu=1 pid=3514
> > > INFO: Freed in bdi_work_free+0x45/0x60 age=9 cpu=1 pid=3509
> > > INFO: Slab 0xc3257d84 objects=36 used=11 fp=0xf498f690 flags=0x400000c3
> > > INFO: Object 0xf498f690 @offset=1680 fp=0xf498fe00
> > >
> > > Bytes b4 0xf498f680: ab 0d 00 00 9c 27 ff ff 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a ?....'??ZZZZZZZZ
> > > Object 0xf498f690: 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
> > > Object 0xf498f6a0: 90 f3 98 f4 60 3c 11 c1 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b .?.?`<.?kkkkkkkk
> >
> > That's 8 bytes of 0xf498f398 and 0xc1113c60. Doesn't look like much, but
> > they're both valid kernel pointers, and the 0xf498f398 one is actually
> > into the same page as the corruption, so it's a pointer to the same slab
> > type (or at least same size). Which is a good hint in itself: we're
> > looking at a list or something.
> >
> > And it's at offset 16 in the structure.
> >
> > That's almost certainly a "struct bdi_work", and the use-aftr-free thing
> > is the "struct rcu_head rcu_head" part of it. That first thing (pointer to
> > the same page) is 'next', and the second thing is a pointer to kernel text
> > (and I can pretty much guarantee that 0xc1113c60 is 'bdi_work_free').
> >
> > So this is either a fs/fs-writeback.c bug, or it's a problem with RCU.
> > Both of them are new or hugely changed since 2.6.31.
>
> If this run had used CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU rather than the
> CONFIG_TREE_RCU that it actually had used, I would suggest applying the
> patchset I submitted yesterday (Sept 13).
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/888803

Ingo, did it? I'll dive into this tonight, Linus' analysis and just a
general feel does point in the direction of the bdi work.

> Will take a look, regardless.

Thanks!

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-14 19:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans