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    [W:0.023 / U:58.704 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site