Re: Regression: ONE CPU fails bootup at Re: [3.2.0-RC7] BUG: unableto handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000598 [ 1.478005]IP: [<ffffffff8107a6c4>] queue_work_on+0x4/0x30

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:20:40PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:53:00 -0800 John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:31 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:09:48 -0800 John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >From the stack trace, we've kicked off a rtc_timer_do_work, probably
> > > > from the rtc_initialize_alarm() schedule_work call added in Neil's
> > > > patch.  From there, we call __rtc_set_alarm -> cmos_set_alarm ->
> > > > cmos_rq_disable -> cmos_checkintr -> rtc_update_irq -> schedule_work.
> > > > 
> > > > So, what it looks to me is that in cmos_checkintr, we grab the cmos->rtc
> > > > and pass that along. Unfortunately, since the cmos->rtc value isn't set
> > > > until after rtc_device_register() returns its null at that point. So
> > > > your patch isn't really fixing the issue, but just reducing the race
> > > > window for the second cpu to schedule the work.
> > > > 
> > > > Sigh. I'd guess dropping the schedule_work call from
> > > > rtc_initialize_alarm() is the right approach (see below). When reviewing
> > > > Neil's patch it seemed like a good idea there, but it seems off to me
> > > > now.
> > > > 
> > > > Neil, any thoughts on the following? Can you expand on the condition you
> > > > were worried about in around that call?
> > > 
> > > If you set an alarm in the future, then shutdown and boot again after that
> > > time, then you will end up with a timer_queue node which is in the past.
> > 
> > Thanks for explaining this again.
> > 
> > Hrm. It seems the easy answer is to simply not add alarms that are in
> > the past.  Further, I'm a bit perplexed, as if they are in the past, the
> > enabled flag shouldn't be set.   __rtc_read_alarm() does check the
> > current time, so maybe we can make sure we don't return old values? I
> > guess I assumed __rtc_read_alarm() avoided returning stale values, but
> > apparently not.
> 
> That would probably be a more robust approach.  Also it might make sense to
> clean out old alarms whenever we are about to add a new one.
> 
> > 
> > > When this happens the queue gets stuck.  That entry-in-the-past won't get
> > > removed until and interrupt happens and an interrupt won't happen because the
> > > RTC only triggers an interrupt when the alarm is "now".
> > > 
> > > So you'll find that e.g. "hwclock" will always tell you that 'select' timed
> > > out.
> > > 
> > > So we force the interrupt work to happen at the start just in case.
> > 
> > Unfortunately its too early. 
> > 
> > > Did you see my proposed patch which converted those calls to do the work
> > > in-process rather than passing it to a worker-thread?  I think that is a
> > > clean fix.
> > 
> > I don't think I saw it today. Was it from before the holidays?
> 
> About 4 hours ago:
>   Subject: Re: Patch Upstream: rtc: Expire alarms after the time is set.
> 
> > 
> > Even so, at this point, I don't know if we have enough time for testing,
> > so I'm thinking we either just drop the problematic sched_work call or
> > revert the whole thing and try again for 3.3
> 
> I wouldn't object to that.  The bug only triggers in unusual circumstances
> and is quite easy to work around so it is safer  to wait until we have a
> really good fix.

Linus,

Sorry for getting you in this loop so late-ish. Would it be possible to revert
93b2ec0128c431148b216b8f7337c1a52131ef03 before 3.2 is released? If there are a
couple of days to work this out we can probably come up with a proper patch but
we don't know when 3.2 is going out (presumarily today?).
--
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/