Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/20] x25: remove the BKL | Date | Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:17:01 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday 27 January 2011, Andrew Hendry wrote: > Left it running and put about 3.0G through x.25, it was running fine > until after about 20 hours. > I was stopping the test programs and hit this. > > Jan 27 20:18:34 jaunty kernel: [80403.945790] PGD 1d8b00067 PUD 1ddec3067 PMD 0
Is there no long above this about what problem was hit? There is normally one saying things like "Bug: unable to handle ..."
Well, nevermind. It seems I could figure it out anyway:
> Jan 27 20:18:34 jaunty kernel: [80403.946083] RAX: 0000000000000080 RBX: ffff880228dbfd70 RCX: ffff880228dbfce4 > Jan 27 20:18:34 jaunty kernel: [80403.946096] RDX: 00000000fffffe00 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff8801ba89f050 > Jan 27 20:18:34 jaunty kernel: [80403.946109] RBP: ffff880228dbfd18 R08: ffff88022aa91000 R09: 0000000000000000 > Jan 27 20:18:34 jaunty kernel: [80403.946482] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff8801ba89f000 > Jan 27 20:18:34 jaunty kernel: [80403.946495] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 > ... > > If i have done it right, x25_sendmsg+0x1a7/0x530 is the skb_reserve > which gets inlined here. > (af_x25.c) > /* Build a packet */ > SOCK_DEBUG(sk, "x25_sendmsg: sendto: building packet.\n"); > > if ((msg->msg_flags & MSG_OOB) && len > 32) > len = 32; > > size = len + X25_MAX_L2_LEN + X25_EXT_MIN_LEN; > > release_sock(sk); > skb = sock_alloc_send_skb(sk, size, noblock, &rc); > lock_sock(sk); > > X25_SKB_CB(skb)->flags = msg->msg_flags;
ok.
> objdump -dS show it at 2197 here. > > static inline void skb_reserve(struct sk_buff *skb, int len) > { > skb->data += len; > skb->tail += len; > 2197: 41 83 87 b4 00 00 00 addl $0x16,0xb4(%r15) <--- > 219e: 16 > 219f: 41 89 47 28 mov %eax,0x28(%r15) > 21a3: 49 8b 87 c8 00 00 00 mov 0xc8(%r15),%rax > 21aa: 48 83 c0 16 add $0x16,%rax > skb_reserve(skb, X25_MAX_L2_LEN + X25_EXT_MIN_LEN); > > But im not sure where to go from there...
It's pretty clear that %r15 is the skb in this, and from the registers in the dump, you can see that it's NULL. skb has just been returned from sock_alloc_send_skb, which means that this function failed.
And indeed:
> > @@ -1148,9 +1140,10 @@ static int x25_sendmsg(struct kiocb *iocb, struct socket *sock, > > > > size = len + X25_MAX_L2_LEN + X25_EXT_MIN_LEN; > > > > + release_sock(sk); > > skb = sock_alloc_send_skb(sk, size, noblock, &rc); > > - if (!skb) > > - goto out; > > + lock_sock(sk); > > + > > X25_SKB_CB(skb)->flags = msg->msg_flags;
I accidentally removed the error handling in my patch. No idea how that happened, it certainly wasn't intentional. Thanks a lot for the thorough testing and the detailed bug report!
I'll follow up with a fixed patch that puts the error path back in.
Arnd
| |