Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Nov 19 2014 - 12:40:32 EST

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So it hasn't actually done the "push %rbx; popfq" part - there must be
> a label at the return part, and context_tracking_user_exit() never
> actually did the local_irq_save/restore at all. Which means that it
> took one of the early exits instead:
> if (!context_tracking_is_enabled())
> return;
> if (in_interrupt())
> return;

Ho humm. Interesting. Neither of those should possibly have happened.

We "know" that "context_tracking_is_enabled()" must be true, because
the only way we get to context_tracking_user_exit() in the first place
is through "user_exit()", which does:

if (context_tracking_is_enabled())

and we know we shouldn't be in_interrupt(), because the backtrace is
the system call entry path, for chrissake!

So we definitely have some corruption going on. A few possibilities:

- either the register contents are corrupted (%rbx in your dump said
"0x0000000100000046", but the eflags we restored was 0x246)

- in_interrupt() is wrong, and we've had some irq_count() corruption.
I'd expect that to result in "scheduling while atomic" messages,
though, especially if it goes on long enough that you get a watchdog

- there is something rotten in the land of
context_tracking_is_enabled(), which uses a static key.

- I have misread the whole trace, and am a moron. But your earlier
report really had some very similar things, just in
context_tracking_user_enter() instead of exit.

In your previous oops, the registers that was allegedly used to
restore %eflags was %r12:

28: 41 54 push %r12
2a: 9d popfq
2b:* 5b pop %rbx <-- trapping instruction
2c: 41 5c pop %r12
2e: 5d pop %rbp
2f: c3 retq


R12: ffff880101ee3ec0
EFLAGS: 00000282

so again, it looks like we never actually did that "popfq"
instruction, and it would have exited through the (same) early exits.

But what an odd coincidence that it ended up in both of your reports
being *exactly* at that instruction after the "popf". If it had
actually *taken* the popf, I'd not be so surprised ("ok, popf enabled
interrupts, and there was an interrupt pending"), but since everything
seems to say that it came there through some control flow that did
*not* go through the popf, that's just a very odd coincidence.

And both context_tracking_user_enter() and exit() have that exact same
issue with the early returns. They shouldn't have happened in the
first place.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at