Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:15:35 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: v2.6.26-rc7: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference |
| |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:59:39 +0800 "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 16:06 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 11:36 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > On Tuesday 24 June 2008 02:58:44 Mike Travis wrote: > > > > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > On Monday 23 June 2008 02:29:07 Vegard Nossum wrote: > > > > >> And the (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) fails because the CPU has just been > > > > >> offlined (or failed to initialize, but it's the same thing), while > > > > >> NR_CPUS is the value that was compiled in as CONFIG_NR_CPUS (so the > > > > >> former check will always be true). > > > > >> > > > > >> I don't think it is valid to ask for a per_cpu() variable on a CPU > > > > >> which does not exist, though > > > > > > > > > > Yes it is. As long as cpu_possible(cpu), per_cpu(cpu) is valid. > > > > > > > > > > The number check should be removed: checking cpu_possible() is > > > > > sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > Hope that helps, > > > > > Rusty. > > > > > > > > I don't see a check for index being out of range in cpu_possible(). > > > > > > You're right. It assumes cpu is < NR_CPUS. Hmm, I have no idea what's going > > > on. nr_cpu_ids (ignore that it's a horrible name for a bad idea) should be > > > fine to test against. > > > > > > Vegard's analysis is flawed: just because cpu is offline, it still must be < > > > nr_cpu_ids, which is based on possible cpus. Unless something crazy is > > > happening, but a quick grep doesn't reveal anyone manipulating nr_cpu_ids. > > > > > > If changing this fixes the bug, something else is badly wrong... > > > Rusty. > > > > In function _cpu_up, the panic happens when calling __raw_notifier_call_chain > > at the second time. Kernel doesn't panic when calling it at the first time. If > > just say because ___of nr_cpu_ids, that's not right. > > > > By checking source codes, I find function do_boot_cpu is the culprit. > > Consider below call chain: > > _cpu_up=>__cpu_up=>smp_ops.cpu_up=>native_cpu_up=>do_boot_cpu. > > > > So ___do_boot_cpu is called in the end. In ___do_boot_cpu, if boot_error==true, > > cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_possible_map) is executed. So later on, when ____cpu_up > > calls _____raw_notifier_call_chain at the second time to report CPU_UP_CANCELED, > > because this cpu is already cleared from ___cpu_possible_map, get_cpu_sysdev returns > > NULL. > > > > Many resources are related to ___cpu_possible_map, so it's better not to change it. > > > > Below patch against 2.6.26-rc7 fixes it by removing the bit clearing in ___cpu_possible_map. > > > > Vegard, would you like to help test it? > > > > _________Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin ___<yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > diff -Nraup linux-2.6.26-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c linux-2.6.26-rc7_cpuhotplug/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > > --- linux-2.6.26-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c 2008-06-24 09:03:54.000000000 +0800 > > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc7_cpuhotplug/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c 2008-06-24 09:04:45.000000000 +0800 > > @@ -996,7 +996,6 @@ do_rest: > > #endif > > cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_callout_map); /* was set by do_boot_cpu() */ > > cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_initialized); /* was set by cpu_init() */ > > - cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_possible_map); > > cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_present_map); > > per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_apicid, cpu) = BAD_APICID; > > } > > > Andrew, > > Would you like to pick up this patch? ___Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> acked it. >
Could. But arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c is an x86-tree file. I'd expect the x86 maintainers would like a usable changelog and a Tested-by: (if indeed Vegard tested it).
| |