Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Oct 2013 18:39:49 +0100 | From | Veaceslav Falico <> | Subject | Re: [BUG 3.12.rc4] Oops: unable to handle kernel paging request during shutdown |
| |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:35:09AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:23:41AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> >>> [+cc Veaceslav] >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >>> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 09:13:29PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>>>> >>>>> .. and one more case of freeing a delayed work object (likely a kobject >>>>> again): >>>>> >>>>> This time it looks like it's in the PCI layer, freeing the msi irq >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> It looks like that code simply does >>>>> >>>>> kobject_del(&entry->kobj); >>>>> kobject_put(&entry->kobj); >>>>> list_del(&entry->list); >>>>> kfree(entry); >>>>> >>>>> and the problem is that the "entry->kobj" may have *other* references >>>>> to it, thanks to people accessing it through /sys, so despite doing a >>>>> kojbect_del/kobject_put(), it's not at all ok to then do a "kfree()" >>>>> on it. The embedded kobj might still be in use. >>>>> >>>>> Afaik, that code should do the kfree() on the kobject in the _release_ >>>>> method, not synchronously like that. >>>>> >>>>> We already have a msi_kobj_release(), I'm wondering why that doesn't >>>>> do the kfree(). >>>>> >>>>> Bjorn? Yinghai? Greg, comments about that msi kobj usage? >>>> >>>> >>>> Ick, it really should be doing a kfree() in the release only. Bjorn has >>>> had a bunch of changes in this area recently, perhaps they are in >>>> linux-next waiting for 3.13, and I've talked to him about getting rid of >>>> all of the kobjects for msi files, as I don't think it's needed at all. >>> >>> >>> IIRC, you said you might take a look at converting this to attributes >>> on the train back home, so I haven't looked into it myself :) >>> >>>> Bjorn, don't you have a fix for this problem already done somewhere? >>> >>> >>> Yep, this is clearly wrong, and Veaceslav has a patch that moves the >>> kfree() to the release function. I've been waiting for a consolidated >>> repost of all his MSI-related fixes, but maybe he's been waiting for >>> *me*. >> >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/9/170 >> >> My patchset is ready to be applied, in its v2 state. >> >> Except that the bits with kobject_del() (theoretical race) - which are done >> in your patch "kobject: remove kset from sysfs immediately in >> kset_unregister()", though I didn't see it accepted. >> >> Should I re-send the patchset? > >Can you please repost it? That will be easier for me than digging >individual messages out of the archives. Thanks, and sorry for my >confusion.
Will rebase and repost, sorry for all the noise about it :).
Thank you!
> >Bjorn
| |