[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [BUG RT] dump-capture kernel not executed for panic in interrupt context

Hi Joerg,

This does look like Andrew's commit (from 2008) is buggy (and this is a
mainline bug, not an RT one). (top posting this so Andrew knows to look
further ;-)

On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:41:08 +0200
Joerg Vehlow <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I think I found a bug in the kernel with rt patches (or maybe even without).
> This applies to all kernels propably starting at 2.6.27.
> When a kernel panic is triggered from an interrupt handler, the dump-capture
> kernel is not started, instead the system acts as if it was not installed.
> The reason for this is, that panic calls __crash_kexec, which is protected
> by a mutex. On an rt kernel this mutex is an rt mutex and when trylock
> is called
> on an rt mutex, the first check is whether the current kthread is in an
> nmi or
> irq handler. If it is, the function just returns 0 -> locking failed.
> According to rt_mutex_trylock documentation, it is not allowed to call this
> function from an irq handler, but panic can be called from everywhere
> and thus
> rt_mutex_trylock can be called from everywhere. Actually even
> mutex_trylock has
> the comment, that it is not supposed to be used from interrupt context,
> but it
> still locks the mutex. I guess this could also be a bug in the non-rt
> kernel.
> I found this problem using a test module, that triggers the softlock
> detection.
> It is a pretty simple module, that creates a kthread, that disables
> preemption,
> spins 60 seconds in an endless loop and then reenables preemption and
> terminates
> the thread. This reliably triggers the softlock detection and if
> kernel.softlockup_panic=0, the system resumes perfectly fine afterwards. If
> kernel.softlockup_panic=1 I would expect the dump-capture kernel to be
> executed,
> but it is not due to the bug (without rt patches it works), instead the
> panic
> function is executed until the end to the endless loop.
> A stacktrace captured at the trylock call inside kexec_code looks like this:
> #0  __rt_mutex_trylock (lock=0xffffffff81701aa0 <kexec_mutex>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:2110
> #1  0xffffffff8087601a in _mutex_trylock (lock=<optimised out>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/kernel/locking/mutex-rt.c:185
> #2  0xffffffff803022a0 in __crash_kexec (regs=0x0 <irq_stack_union>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/kernel/kexec_core.c:941
> #3  0xffffffff8027af59 in panic (fmt=0xffffffff80fa3d66 "softlockup:
> hung tasks") at /usr/src/kernel/kernel/panic.c:198
> #4  0xffffffff80325b6d in watchdog_timer_fn (hrtimer=<optimised out>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/kernel/watchdog.c:464
> #5  0xffffffff802e6b90 in __run_hrtimer (flags=<optimised out>,
> now=<optimised out>, timer=<optimised out>, base=<optimised out>,
> cpu_base=<optimised out>) at /usr/src/kernel/kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1417
> #6  __hrtimer_run_queues (cpu_base=0xffff88807db1c000, now=<optimised
> out>, flags=<optimised out>, active_mask=<optimised out>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1479
> #7  0xffffffff802e7704 in hrtimer_interrupt (dev=<optimised out>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1539
> #8  0xffffffff80a020f2 in local_apic_timer_interrupt () at
> /usr/src/kernel/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1067
> #9  smp_apic_timer_interrupt (regs=<optimised out>) at
> /usr/src/kernel/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1092
> #10 0xffffffff80a015df in apic_timer_interrupt () at
> /usr/src/kernel/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:909
> Obviously and as expected the panic was triggered in the context of the apic
> interrupt. So in_irq() is true and trylock fails.
> About 12 years ago this was not implemented using a mutex, but using xchg.
> See: 8c5a1cf0ad3ac5fcdf51314a63b16a440870f6a2

Yes, that commit is wrong, because mutex_trylock() is not to be taken in
interrupt context, where crash_kexec() looks like it can be called.

Unless back then crash_kexec() wasn't called in interrupt context, then the
commit that calls it from that combined with this commit is the issue.

-- Steve

> Since my knowledege about mutexes inside the kernel is very limited, I
> do not
> know how this can be fixed and whether it should be fixed in the rt
> patches or
> if this really is a bug in mainline kernel (because trylock is also not
> allowed
> to be used in interrupt handlers.
> Jörg

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-28 14:46    [W:0.083 / U:32.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site