Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: v2.6.26-rc7: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference | Date | Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:16:42 +1000 |
| |
On Thursday 26 June 2008 22:58:20 Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:14:51PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 June 2008 18:06:23 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); > > Nice catch. > > While we're at it, is the clearing of cpu from the cpu_present_map > necessary if cpu_up failed for 'cpu' ?
It's never necessary, but there there are not many places which cpu_present is examined. It just prevents it from being hot added again, AFAICT.
Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |