Re: [Bug #13941] x86 Geode issue

[Martin-Ãric Racine]

2009/8/17 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> * Martin-Ãric Racine <q-funk@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Thursday 13 August 2009, Martin-Ãric Racine wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki<rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> > On Thursday 13 August 2009, Martin-Ãric Racine wrote:
>> > >> >> 2009/8/13 Martin-Ãric Racine <q-funk@xxxxxx>:
>> > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> * Martin-Ãric Racine <q-funk@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >> >> >>> Yes, this bug is still valid.
>> > >> >> >>>
>> > >> >> >>> Ubuntu kernel team member Leann Ogasawara and I are slowly
>> > >> >> >>> bisecting our way through the changes that took place since 2.6.30
>> > >> >> >>> to find the commit that introduced this regression. Please stay
>> > >> >> >>> tuned.
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> hm, the only outright Geode related commit was:
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Âd6c585a: x86: geode: Mark mfgpt irq IRQF_TIMER to prevent resume failure
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> the jpg at:
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Âhttp://launchpadlibrarian.net/28892781/00002.jpg
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> is very out of focus - but what i could decypher suggests a
>> > >> >> >> pagefault crash in the VFS code, in generic_delete_inode().
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> This one might be a bit better:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30267494/2.6.31-5.24.jpg
>> > >
>> > > Hmm. ÂThis looks like a sysfs oops to my untrained eye.
>> >
>> > The bisect I did with Leann Ogasawara has narrowed the kernel panic
>> > down to the following:
>> >
>> > commit f19d4a8fa6f9b6ccf54df0971c97ffcaa390b7b0
>> > Author: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Date: Mon Jun 8 19:50:45 2009 -0400
>> >
>> > Â Â add caching of ACLs in struct inode
>> >
>> > Â Â No helpers, no conversions yet.
>> >
>> > Â Â Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Weird. If the functions do what their name suggests, i.e. if
>> inode_init_always() is an always called constructor and if
>> destroy_inode() is an unconditional destructor then this patch
>> should have no functional effect on the VFS side.
>>
>> It increases the size of struct inode, so if you have some old
>> module (built to an older version of fs.h) still around it might
>> corrupt your inode data structure.
>>
>> Or the size change might trigger some dormant bug. It might move a
>> critical inode right into the path of a pre-existing (but not
>> visibly crash-triggering) data corruption.
>>
>> The possibilities on the 'weird bug' front are endless - the
>> crash/oops itself should be turned into text, posted here and
>> analyzed.
>
> Btw., before you invest any time into the 'weird crash' theory, i'd
> suggest to double check the bisection result:
>
> Âf19d4a8fa6f9b6ccf54df0971c97ffcaa390b7b0 Â Âcrashes
> Âf19d4a8fa6f9b6ccf54df0971c97ffcaa390b7b0~1 Âboots fine
>
> You can save yourself from a lot of head scratching that way - the
> bisection result looks weird. (albeit plausible - a VFS crash points
> to a VFS commit.)
>
> _Maybe_ the bisection is just off a little bit (there was a
> bisection mistake in the last few steps), and the real buggy commit
> is one of the nearby ones:

We double checked again last week with fresh builds and validated that
the above result is correct.

What puzzles us is the start of the crash:


BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffb4ff
IP: [<c01f716b>] __destroy_inode+0x4b/0x80
*pde = 00810067 *pte = 00000000
Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
last sysfs file: /sys/power/resume


Any ideas?
Martin-Ãric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/