LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
@ 2021-09-15 17:00 syzbot
  2021-09-15 23:14 ` Andrew Morton
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: syzbot @ 2021-09-15 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: akpm, linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs

Hello,

syzbot found the following issue on:

HEAD commit:    926de8c4326c Merge tag 'acpi-5.15-rc1-3' of git://git.kern..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=17aa010d300000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=1c3d15ee2073a2a2
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d6c75f383e01426a40b4
compiler:       gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.1

Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 debug_object_is_on_stack lib/debugobjects.c:545 [inline]
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 __debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5 lib/debugobjects.c:607
Modules linked in:
CPU: 1 PID: 2971 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.14.0-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
RIP: 0010:debug_object_is_on_stack lib/debugobjects.c:548 [inline]
RIP: 0010:__debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5 lib/debugobjects.c:607
Code: 00 48 8d 7b 20 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 80 3c 02 00 74 05 e8 c0 3e bb f8 48 8b 53 20 4c 89 e6 48 c7 c7 c0 a7 e3 89 e8 a1 34 f2 ff <0f> 0b e9 3f 9f dc fa 48 b8 00 01 00 00 00 00 ad de 48 89 ef 48 89
RSP: 0018:ffffc90000fd89f8 EFLAGS: 00010286
RAX: 0000000000000050 RBX: ffff88801f3f2180 RCX: 0000000000000000
RDX: ffff88801f3f2180 RSI: ffffffff815cef88 RDI: fffff520001fb131
RBP: ffff88801f3f2180 R08: 0000000000000050 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: ffffffff815c8cfe R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffc90000fd8bc8
R13: 1ffff920001fb14e R14: ffffffff9040c580 R15: ffffffff9040c578
FS:  00007f35a6cd88c0(0000) GS:ffff8880b9d00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00000000014a53ad CR3: 000000001fc51000 CR4: 00000000001526e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
 <IRQ>
 __init_work+0x2d/0x50 kernel/workqueue.c:519
 synchronize_rcu_expedited+0x392/0x620 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:847
 bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
 bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
 release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
 kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
 bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
 bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
 i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224
 rcu_do_batch kernel/rcu/tree.c:2508 [inline]
 rcu_core+0x7ab/0x1470 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2743
 __do_softirq+0x29b/0x9c2 kernel/softirq.c:558
 invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:432 [inline]
 __irq_exit_rcu+0x123/0x180 kernel/softirq.c:636
 irq_exit_rcu+0x5/0x20 kernel/softirq.c:648
 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x93/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1097
 </IRQ>
 asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20 arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:638
RIP: 0010:preempt_count arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:27 [inline]
RIP: 0010:check_kcov_mode kernel/kcov.c:163 [inline]
RIP: 0010:__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc+0x0/0x60 kernel/kcov.c:197
Code: 01 f0 4d 89 03 e9 63 fd ff ff b9 ff ff ff ff ba 08 00 00 00 4d 8b 03 48 0f bd ca 49 8b 45 00 48 63 c9 e9 64 ff ff ff 0f 1f 00 <65> 8b 05 c9 ab 8c 7e 89 c1 48 8b 34 24 81 e1 00 01 00 00 65 48 8b
RSP: 0018:ffffc900022a79d8 EFLAGS: 00000202
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000001
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff88801f3f2180 RDI: 0000000000000003
RBP: ffffc900022a7b48 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000005
R10: ffffffff83a87292 R11: 000000000000001f R12: ffff888020928180
R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
 tomoyo_check_path_acl security/tomoyo/file.c:260 [inline]
 tomoyo_check_path_acl+0xbe/0x210 security/tomoyo/file.c:252
 tomoyo_check_acl+0x13c/0x450 security/tomoyo/domain.c:175
 tomoyo_path_permission security/tomoyo/file.c:586 [inline]
 tomoyo_path_permission+0x1ff/0x3a0 security/tomoyo/file.c:573
 tomoyo_path_perm+0x2f0/0x400 security/tomoyo/file.c:838
 security_inode_getattr+0xcf/0x140 security/security.c:1333
 vfs_getattr fs/stat.c:157 [inline]
 vfs_statx+0x164/0x390 fs/stat.c:225
 vfs_fstatat fs/stat.c:243 [inline]
 vfs_lstat include/linux/fs.h:3356 [inline]
 __do_sys_newlstat+0x91/0x110 fs/stat.c:398
 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
 do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7f35a5b4a335
Code: 69 db 2b 00 64 c7 00 16 00 00 00 b8 ff ff ff ff c3 0f 1f 40 00 83 ff 01 48 89 f0 77 30 48 89 c7 48 89 d6 b8 06 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 03 f3 c3 90 48 8b 15 31 db 2b 00 f7 d8 64 89
RSP: 002b:00007ffd7b867ca8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000006
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000563eb9e97120 RCX: 00007f35a5b4a335
RDX: 00007ffd7b867ce0 RSI: 00007ffd7b867ce0 RDI: 0000563eb9e96120
RBP: 00007ffd7b867da0 R08: 00007f35a5e092e8 R09: 0000000000001010
R10: 00007f35a5e08b58 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000563eb9e96120
R13: 0000563eb9e9614a R14: 0000563eb9e8dce1 R15: 0000563eb9e8dcea
----------------
Code disassembly (best guess):
   0:	01 f0                	add    %esi,%eax
   2:	4d 89 03             	mov    %r8,(%r11)
   5:	e9 63 fd ff ff       	jmpq   0xfffffd6d
   a:	b9 ff ff ff ff       	mov    $0xffffffff,%ecx
   f:	ba 08 00 00 00       	mov    $0x8,%edx
  14:	4d 8b 03             	mov    (%r11),%r8
  17:	48 0f bd ca          	bsr    %rdx,%rcx
  1b:	49 8b 45 00          	mov    0x0(%r13),%rax
  1f:	48 63 c9             	movslq %ecx,%rcx
  22:	e9 64 ff ff ff       	jmpq   0xffffff8b
  27:	0f 1f 00             	nopl   (%rax)
* 2a:	65 8b 05 c9 ab 8c 7e 	mov    %gs:0x7e8cabc9(%rip),%eax        # 0x7e8cabfa <-- trapping instruction
  31:	89 c1                	mov    %eax,%ecx
  33:	48 8b 34 24          	mov    (%rsp),%rsi
  37:	81 e1 00 01 00 00    	and    $0x100,%ecx
  3d:	65                   	gs
  3e:	48                   	rex.W
  3f:	8b                   	.byte 0x8b


---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.

syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-15 17:00 [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work syzbot
@ 2021-09-15 23:14 ` Andrew Morton
  2021-09-16  2:29   ` Stephen Boyd
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2021-09-15 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: syzbot
  Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Thomas Gleixner,
	Stephen Boyd, Waiman Long

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:00:22 -0700 syzbot <syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> syzbot found the following issue on:
> 
> HEAD commit:    926de8c4326c Merge tag 'acpi-5.15-rc1-3' of git://git.kern..
> git tree:       upstream
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=17aa010d300000
> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=1c3d15ee2073a2a2
> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d6c75f383e01426a40b4
> compiler:       gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.1
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> 
> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> Reported-by: syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> 
> ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 debug_object_is_on_stack lib/debugobjects.c:545 [inline]
> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 __debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5 lib/debugobjects.c:607
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 1 PID: 2971 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.14.0-syzkaller #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> RIP: 0010:debug_object_is_on_stack lib/debugobjects.c:548 [inline]
> RIP: 0010:__debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5 lib/debugobjects.c:607
> Code: 00 48 8d 7b 20 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 80 3c 02 00 74 05 e8 c0 3e bb f8 48 8b 53 20 4c 89 e6 48 c7 c7 c0 a7 e3 89 e8 a1 34 f2 ff <0f> 0b e9 3f 9f dc fa 48 b8 00 01 00 00 00 00 ad de 48 89 ef 48 89
> RSP: 0018:ffffc90000fd89f8 EFLAGS: 00010286
> RAX: 0000000000000050 RBX: ffff88801f3f2180 RCX: 0000000000000000
> RDX: ffff88801f3f2180 RSI: ffffffff815cef88 RDI: fffff520001fb131
> RBP: ffff88801f3f2180 R08: 0000000000000050 R09: 0000000000000000
> R10: ffffffff815c8cfe R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffc90000fd8bc8
> R13: 1ffff920001fb14e R14: ffffffff9040c580 R15: ffffffff9040c578
> FS:  00007f35a6cd88c0(0000) GS:ffff8880b9d00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00000000014a53ad CR3: 000000001fc51000 CR4: 00000000001526e0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Call Trace:
>  <IRQ>
>  __init_work+0x2d/0x50 kernel/workqueue.c:519
>  synchronize_rcu_expedited+0x392/0x620 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:847
>  bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
>  bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
>  release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
>  kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
>  bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
>  bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
>  i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224
>  rcu_do_batch kernel/rcu/tree.c:2508 [inline]
>  rcu_core+0x7ab/0x1470 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2743
>  __do_softirq+0x29b/0x9c2 kernel/softirq.c:558
>  invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:432 [inline]
>  __irq_exit_rcu+0x123/0x180 kernel/softirq.c:636
>  irq_exit_rcu+0x5/0x20 kernel/softirq.c:648
>  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x93/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1097
>  </IRQ>

Seems that we have a debugobject in the incorrect state, but it doesn't
necessarily mean there's something wrong in the bdi code.  It's just
that the bdi code happened to be the place which called
synchronize_rcu_expedited().

Thomas, is there a way in which the debugobject code can help us find
out where this object came from?


>  asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20 arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:638
> RIP: 0010:preempt_count arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:27 [inline]
> RIP: 0010:check_kcov_mode kernel/kcov.c:163 [inline]
> RIP: 0010:__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc+0x0/0x60 kernel/kcov.c:197
> Code: 01 f0 4d 89 03 e9 63 fd ff ff b9 ff ff ff ff ba 08 00 00 00 4d 8b 03 48 0f bd ca 49 8b 45 00 48 63 c9 e9 64 ff ff ff 0f 1f 00 <65> 8b 05 c9 ab 8c 7e 89 c1 48 8b 34 24 81 e1 00 01 00 00 65 48 8b
> RSP: 0018:ffffc900022a79d8 EFLAGS: 00000202
> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000001
> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff88801f3f2180 RDI: 0000000000000003
> RBP: ffffc900022a7b48 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000005
> R10: ffffffff83a87292 R11: 000000000000001f R12: ffff888020928180
> R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
>  tomoyo_check_path_acl security/tomoyo/file.c:260 [inline]
>  tomoyo_check_path_acl+0xbe/0x210 security/tomoyo/file.c:252
>  tomoyo_check_acl+0x13c/0x450 security/tomoyo/domain.c:175
>  tomoyo_path_permission security/tomoyo/file.c:586 [inline]
>  tomoyo_path_permission+0x1ff/0x3a0 security/tomoyo/file.c:573
>  tomoyo_path_perm+0x2f0/0x400 security/tomoyo/file.c:838
>  security_inode_getattr+0xcf/0x140 security/security.c:1333
>  vfs_getattr fs/stat.c:157 [inline]
>  vfs_statx+0x164/0x390 fs/stat.c:225
>  vfs_fstatat fs/stat.c:243 [inline]
>  vfs_lstat include/linux/fs.h:3356 [inline]
>  __do_sys_newlstat+0x91/0x110 fs/stat.c:398
>  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
>  do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> RIP: 0033:0x7f35a5b4a335
> Code: 69 db 2b 00 64 c7 00 16 00 00 00 b8 ff ff ff ff c3 0f 1f 40 00 83 ff 01 48 89 f0 77 30 48 89 c7 48 89 d6 b8 06 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 03 f3 c3 90 48 8b 15 31 db 2b 00 f7 d8 64 89
> RSP: 002b:00007ffd7b867ca8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000006
> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000563eb9e97120 RCX: 00007f35a5b4a335
> RDX: 00007ffd7b867ce0 RSI: 00007ffd7b867ce0 RDI: 0000563eb9e96120
> RBP: 00007ffd7b867da0 R08: 00007f35a5e092e8 R09: 0000000000001010
> R10: 00007f35a5e08b58 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000563eb9e96120
> R13: 0000563eb9e9614a R14: 0000563eb9e8dce1 R15: 0000563eb9e8dcea
> ----------------
> Code disassembly (best guess):
>    0:	01 f0                	add    %esi,%eax
>    2:	4d 89 03             	mov    %r8,(%r11)
>    5:	e9 63 fd ff ff       	jmpq   0xfffffd6d
>    a:	b9 ff ff ff ff       	mov    $0xffffffff,%ecx
>    f:	ba 08 00 00 00       	mov    $0x8,%edx
>   14:	4d 8b 03             	mov    (%r11),%r8
>   17:	48 0f bd ca          	bsr    %rdx,%rcx
>   1b:	49 8b 45 00          	mov    0x0(%r13),%rax
>   1f:	48 63 c9             	movslq %ecx,%rcx
>   22:	e9 64 ff ff ff       	jmpq   0xffffff8b
>   27:	0f 1f 00             	nopl   (%rax)
> * 2a:	65 8b 05 c9 ab 8c 7e 	mov    %gs:0x7e8cabc9(%rip),%eax        # 0x7e8cabfa <-- trapping instruction
>   31:	89 c1                	mov    %eax,%ecx
>   33:	48 8b 34 24          	mov    (%rsp),%rsi
>   37:	81 e1 00 01 00 00    	and    $0x100,%ecx
>   3d:	65                   	gs
>   3e:	48                   	rex.W
>   3f:	8b                   	.byte 0x8b
> 
> 
> ---
> This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
> See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
> syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.
> 
> syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
> https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-15 23:14 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2021-09-16  2:29   ` Stephen Boyd
  2021-09-19 12:41     ` Thomas Gleixner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Boyd @ 2021-09-16  2:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton, syzbot
  Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Thomas Gleixner, Waiman Long

Quoting Andrew Morton (2021-09-15 16:14:57)
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:00:22 -0700 syzbot <syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > syzbot found the following issue on:
> > 
> > HEAD commit:    926de8c4326c Merge tag 'acpi-5.15-rc1-3' of git://git.kern..
> > git tree:       upstream
> > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=17aa010d300000
> > kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=1c3d15ee2073a2a2
> > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d6c75f383e01426a40b4
> > compiler:       gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.1
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > 
> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > Reported-by: syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > 
> > ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.

This is saying that the object was supposed to be on the stack because
debug objects was told that, but it isn't on the stack per the
definition of object_is_on_stack().

> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 debug_object_is_on_stack lib/debugobjects.c:545 [inline]
> > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 __debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5 lib/debugobjects.c:607
> > Modules linked in:
> > CPU: 1 PID: 2971 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 5.14.0-syzkaller #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> > RIP: 0010:debug_object_is_on_stack lib/debugobjects.c:548 [inline]
> > RIP: 0010:__debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5 lib/debugobjects.c:607
> > Code: 00 48 8d 7b 20 48 89 fa 48 c1 ea 03 80 3c 02 00 74 05 e8 c0 3e bb f8 48 8b 53 20 4c 89 e6 48 c7 c7 c0 a7 e3 89 e8 a1 34 f2 ff <0f> 0b e9 3f 9f dc fa 48 b8 00 01 00 00 00 00 ad de 48 89 ef 48 89
> > RSP: 0018:ffffc90000fd89f8 EFLAGS: 00010286
> > RAX: 0000000000000050 RBX: ffff88801f3f2180 RCX: 0000000000000000
> > RDX: ffff88801f3f2180 RSI: ffffffff815cef88 RDI: fffff520001fb131
> > RBP: ffff88801f3f2180 R08: 0000000000000050 R09: 0000000000000000
> > R10: ffffffff815c8cfe R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffc90000fd8bc8
> > R13: 1ffff920001fb14e R14: ffffffff9040c580 R15: ffffffff9040c578
> > FS:  00007f35a6cd88c0(0000) GS:ffff8880b9d00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > CR2: 00000000014a53ad CR3: 000000001fc51000 CR4: 00000000001526e0
> > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > Call Trace:
> >  <IRQ>
> >  __init_work+0x2d/0x50 kernel/workqueue.c:519
> >  synchronize_rcu_expedited+0x392/0x620 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:847

This line looks like

  INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&rew.rew_work, wait_rcu_exp_gp);

inside synchronize_rcu_expedited(). The rew structure is declared on the
stack

   struct rcu_exp_work rew;

> >  bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
> >  bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
> >  release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
> >  kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
> >  bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
> >  bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
> >  i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224
> >  rcu_do_batch kernel/rcu/tree.c:2508 [inline]
> >  rcu_core+0x7ab/0x1470 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2743
> >  __do_softirq+0x29b/0x9c2 kernel/softirq.c:558
> >  invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:432 [inline]
> >  __irq_exit_rcu+0x123/0x180 kernel/softirq.c:636
> >  irq_exit_rcu+0x5/0x20 kernel/softirq.c:648
> >  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x93/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1097
> >  </IRQ>
> 
> Seems that we have a debugobject in the incorrect state, but it doesn't
> necessarily mean there's something wrong in the bdi code.  It's just
> that the bdi code happened to be the place which called
> synchronize_rcu_expedited().

Is it possible that object_is_on_stack() doesn't work in IRQ context?
I'm not really following along on x86 but I could see where
task_stack_page() gets the wrong "stack" pointer because the task has one
stack and the irq stack is some per-cpu dedicated allocation?

> 
> Thomas, is there a way in which the debugobject code can help us find
> out where this object came from?
> 
> 
> >  asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20 arch/x86/include/asm/idtentry.h:638
> > RIP: 0010:preempt_count arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:27 [inline]
> > RIP: 0010:check_kcov_mode kernel/kcov.c:163 [inline]
> > RIP: 0010:__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc+0x0/0x60 kernel/kcov.c:197
> > Code: 01 f0 4d 89 03 e9 63 fd ff ff b9 ff ff ff ff ba 08 00 00 00 4d 8b 03 48 0f bd ca 49 8b 45 00 48 63 c9 e9 64 ff ff ff 0f 1f 00 <65> 8b 05 c9 ab 8c 7e 89 c1 48 8b 34 24 81 e1 00 01 00 00 65 48 8b
> > RSP: 0018:ffffc900022a79d8 EFLAGS: 00000202
> > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000001
> > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff88801f3f2180 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > RBP: ffffc900022a7b48 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000005
> > R10: ffffffff83a87292 R11: 000000000000001f R12: ffff888020928180
> > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> >  tomoyo_check_path_acl security/tomoyo/file.c:260 [inline]
> >  tomoyo_check_path_acl+0xbe/0x210 security/tomoyo/file.c:252
> >  tomoyo_check_acl+0x13c/0x450 security/tomoyo/domain.c:175
> >  tomoyo_path_permission security/tomoyo/file.c:586 [inline]
> >  tomoyo_path_permission+0x1ff/0x3a0 security/tomoyo/file.c:573
> >  tomoyo_path_perm+0x2f0/0x400 security/tomoyo/file.c:838
> >  security_inode_getattr+0xcf/0x140 security/security.c:1333
> >  vfs_getattr fs/stat.c:157 [inline]
> >  vfs_statx+0x164/0x390 fs/stat.c:225
> >  vfs_fstatat fs/stat.c:243 [inline]
> >  vfs_lstat include/linux/fs.h:3356 [inline]
> >  __do_sys_newlstat+0x91/0x110 fs/stat.c:398
> >  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> >  do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> >  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > RIP: 0033:0x7f35a5b4a335
> > Code: 69 db 2b 00 64 c7 00 16 00 00 00 b8 ff ff ff ff c3 0f 1f 40 00 83 ff 01 48 89 f0 77 30 48 89 c7 48 89 d6 b8 06 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 03 f3 c3 90 48 8b 15 31 db 2b 00 f7 d8 64 89
> > RSP: 002b:00007ffd7b867ca8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000006
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000563eb9e97120 RCX: 00007f35a5b4a335
> > RDX: 00007ffd7b867ce0 RSI: 00007ffd7b867ce0 RDI: 0000563eb9e96120
> > RBP: 00007ffd7b867da0 R08: 00007f35a5e092e8 R09: 0000000000001010
> > R10: 00007f35a5e08b58 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000563eb9e96120
> > R13: 0000563eb9e9614a R14: 0000563eb9e8dce1 R15: 0000563eb9e8dcea
> > ----------------
> > Code disassembly (best guess):
> >    0: 01 f0                   add    %esi,%eax
> >    2: 4d 89 03                mov    %r8,(%r11)
> >    5: e9 63 fd ff ff          jmpq   0xfffffd6d
> >    a: b9 ff ff ff ff          mov    $0xffffffff,%ecx
> >    f: ba 08 00 00 00          mov    $0x8,%edx
> >   14: 4d 8b 03                mov    (%r11),%r8
> >   17: 48 0f bd ca             bsr    %rdx,%rcx
> >   1b: 49 8b 45 00             mov    0x0(%r13),%rax
> >   1f: 48 63 c9                movslq %ecx,%rcx
> >   22: e9 64 ff ff ff          jmpq   0xffffff8b
> >   27: 0f 1f 00                nopl   (%rax)
> > * 2a: 65 8b 05 c9 ab 8c 7e    mov    %gs:0x7e8cabc9(%rip),%eax        # 0x7e8cabfa <-- trapping instruction
> >   31: 89 c1                   mov    %eax,%ecx
> >   33: 48 8b 34 24             mov    (%rsp),%rsi
> >   37: 81 e1 00 01 00 00       and    $0x100,%ecx
> >   3d: 65                      gs
> >   3e: 48                      rex.W
> >   3f: 8b                      .byte 0x8b
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
> > See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
> > syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.
> > 
> > syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
> > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-16  2:29   ` Stephen Boyd
@ 2021-09-19 12:41     ` Thomas Gleixner
  2021-09-20  4:03       ` Dave Chinner
       [not found]       ` <163224949689.3714697.17466968510780664239@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2021-09-19 12:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephen Boyd, Andrew Morton, syzbot
  Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Waiman Long,
	Paul E. McKenney, Al Viro, Jens Axboe, linux-block,
	linux-fsdevel

Stephen,

On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 19:29, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Morton (2021-09-15 16:14:57)
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:00:22 -0700 syzbot <syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.
>
> This is saying that the object was supposed to be on the stack because
> debug objects was told that, but it isn't on the stack per the
> definition of object_is_on_stack().

Correct.

>> >  <IRQ>
>> >  __init_work+0x2d/0x50 kernel/workqueue.c:519
>> >  synchronize_rcu_expedited+0x392/0x620 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:847
>
> This line looks like
>
>   INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&rew.rew_work, wait_rcu_exp_gp);
>
> inside synchronize_rcu_expedited(). The rew structure is declared on the
> stack
>
>    struct rcu_exp_work rew;

Yes, but object_is_on_stack() checks for task stacks only. And the splat
here is entirely correct:

softirq()
  ...
  synchronize_rcu_expedited()
     INIT_WORK_ONSTACK()
     queue_work()
     wait_event()

is obviously broken. You cannot wait in soft irq context.

synchronize_rcu_expedited() should really have a might_sleep() at the
beginning to make that more obvious.

The splat is clobbered btw:

[  416.415111][    C1] ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.
[  416.423424][T14850] truncated
[  416.431623][    C1] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  416.438913][T14850] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  416.440189][    C1] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 __debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5
[  416.455797][T14850] refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.

So there is a refcount_t violation as well.

Nevertheless a hint for finding the culprit is obviously here in that
call chain:

>> >  bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
>> >  bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
>> >  release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
>> >  kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
>> >  bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
>> >  bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
>> >  i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224

The inode code uses RCU for freeing an inode object which then ends up
calling bdi_put() and subsequently in synchronize_rcu_expedited().

>> >  rcu_do_batch kernel/rcu/tree.c:2508 [inline]
>> >  rcu_core+0x7ab/0x1470 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2743
>> >  __do_softirq+0x29b/0x9c2 kernel/softirq.c:558
>> >  invoke_softirq kernel/softirq.c:432 [inline]
>> >  __irq_exit_rcu+0x123/0x180 kernel/softirq.c:636
>> >  irq_exit_rcu+0x5/0x20 kernel/softirq.c:648
>> >  sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x93/0xc0 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c:1097
>> >  </IRQ>
>> 
>> Seems that we have a debugobject in the incorrect state, but it doesn't
>> necessarily mean there's something wrong in the bdi code.  It's just
>> that the bdi code happened to be the place which called
>> synchronize_rcu_expedited().

Again, it cannot do that from a softirq because
synchronize_rcu_expedited() might sleep.

> Is it possible that object_is_on_stack() doesn't work in IRQ context?
> I'm not really following along on x86 but I could see where
> task_stack_page() gets the wrong "stack" pointer because the task has one
> stack and the irq stack is some per-cpu dedicated allocation?

Even if debug objects would support objects on irq stacks, the above is
still bogus. But it does not and will not because the operations here
have to be fully synchronous:

    init() -> queue() or arm() -> wait() -> destroy()

because you obviously cannot queue work or arm a timer which are on stack
and then leave the function without waiting for the operation to complete.

So these operations have to be synchronous which is a NONO when running
in hard or soft interrupt context because waiting for the operation to
complete is not possible there.

Thanks,

        tglx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-19 12:41     ` Thomas Gleixner
@ 2021-09-20  4:03       ` Dave Chinner
  2021-09-20 12:28         ` Christoph Hellwig
       [not found]       ` <163224949689.3714697.17466968510780664239@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2021-09-20  4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Gleixner
  Cc: Stephen Boyd, Andrew Morton, syzbot, linux-kernel, linux-mm,
	syzkaller-bugs, Waiman Long, Paul E. McKenney, Al Viro,
	Jens Axboe, linux-block, linux-fsdevel, hch

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 02:41:18PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 15 2021 at 19:29, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Andrew Morton (2021-09-15 16:14:57)
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:00:22 -0700 syzbot <syzbot+d6c75f383e01426a40b4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.
> >
> > This is saying that the object was supposed to be on the stack because
> > debug objects was told that, but it isn't on the stack per the
> > definition of object_is_on_stack().
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >> >  <IRQ>
> >> >  __init_work+0x2d/0x50 kernel/workqueue.c:519
> >> >  synchronize_rcu_expedited+0x392/0x620 kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:847
> >
> > This line looks like
> >
> >   INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&rew.rew_work, wait_rcu_exp_gp);
> >
> > inside synchronize_rcu_expedited(). The rew structure is declared on the
> > stack
> >
> >    struct rcu_exp_work rew;
> 
> Yes, but object_is_on_stack() checks for task stacks only. And the splat
> here is entirely correct:
> 
> softirq()
>   ...
>   synchronize_rcu_expedited()
>      INIT_WORK_ONSTACK()
>      queue_work()
>      wait_event()
> 
> is obviously broken. You cannot wait in soft irq context.
> 
> synchronize_rcu_expedited() should really have a might_sleep() at the
> beginning to make that more obvious.
> 
> The splat is clobbered btw:
> 
> [  416.415111][    C1] ODEBUG: object ffffc90000fd8bc8 is NOT on stack ffffc900022a0000, but annotated.
> [  416.423424][T14850] truncated
> [  416.431623][    C1] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [  416.438913][T14850] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [  416.440189][    C1] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2971 at lib/debugobjects.c:548 __debug_object_init.cold+0x252/0x2e5
> [  416.455797][T14850] refcount_t: addition on 0; use-after-free.
> 
> So there is a refcount_t violation as well.
> 
> Nevertheless a hint for finding the culprit is obviously here in that
> call chain:
> 
> >> >  bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
> >> >  bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
> >> >  release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
> >> >  kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
> >> >  bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
> >> >  bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
> >> >  i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224
> 
> The inode code uses RCU for freeing an inode object which then ends up
> calling bdi_put() and subsequently in synchronize_rcu_expedited().

Commit 889c05cc5834 ("block: ensure the bdi is freed after
inode_detach_wb") might be a good place to start looking here. It
moved the release of the bdi from ->evict context to the RCU freeing
of the blockdev inode...

Christoph?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-20  4:03       ` Dave Chinner
@ 2021-09-20 12:28         ` Christoph Hellwig
  2021-09-20 12:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-09-20 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Chinner
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Boyd, Andrew Morton, syzbot,
	linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Waiman Long,
	Paul E. McKenney, Al Viro, Jens Axboe, linux-block,
	linux-fsdevel, hch

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:03:36PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >> >  bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
> > >> >  bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
> > >> >  release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
> > >> >  kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
> > >> >  bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
> > >> >  bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
> > >> >  i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224
> > 
> > The inode code uses RCU for freeing an inode object which then ends up
> > calling bdi_put() and subsequently in synchronize_rcu_expedited().
> 
> Commit 889c05cc5834 ("block: ensure the bdi is freed after
> inode_detach_wb") might be a good place to start looking here. It
> moved the release of the bdi from ->evict context to the RCU freeing
> of the blockdev inode...

Well, the block code already does a bdi_unregister in del_gendisk.
So if we end up freeing the whole device bdev with a registered bdi
something is badly going wrong.  Unfortunately the log in this report
isn't much help on how we got there.  IIRC syzbot will eventually spew
out a reproducer, so it might be worth to wait for that.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-20 12:28         ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2021-09-20 12:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
  2021-09-20 12:45             ` Christoph Hellwig
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2021-09-20 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig
  Cc: Dave Chinner, Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Boyd, Andrew Morton,
	syzbot, linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Waiman Long,
	Al Viro, Jens Axboe, linux-block, linux-fsdevel

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:28:46PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:03:36PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > >> >  bdi_remove_from_list mm/backing-dev.c:938 [inline]
> > > >> >  bdi_unregister+0x177/0x5a0 mm/backing-dev.c:946
> > > >> >  release_bdi+0xa1/0xc0 mm/backing-dev.c:968
> > > >> >  kref_put include/linux/kref.h:65 [inline]
> > > >> >  bdi_put+0x72/0xa0 mm/backing-dev.c:976
> > > >> >  bdev_free_inode+0x116/0x220 fs/block_dev.c:819
> > > >> >  i_callback+0x3f/0x70 fs/inode.c:224
> > > 
> > > The inode code uses RCU for freeing an inode object which then ends up
> > > calling bdi_put() and subsequently in synchronize_rcu_expedited().
> > 
> > Commit 889c05cc5834 ("block: ensure the bdi is freed after
> > inode_detach_wb") might be a good place to start looking here. It
> > moved the release of the bdi from ->evict context to the RCU freeing
> > of the blockdev inode...
> 
> Well, the block code already does a bdi_unregister in del_gendisk.
> So if we end up freeing the whole device bdev with a registered bdi
> something is badly going wrong.  Unfortunately the log in this report
> isn't much help on how we got there.  IIRC syzbot will eventually spew
> out a reproducer, so it might be worth to wait for that.

If it does turn out that you need to block in an RCU callback,
queue_rcu_work() can be helpful.  This schedules a workqueue from the RCU
callback, allowing the function passed to the preceding INIT_RCU_WORK()
to block.

							Thanx, Paul

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-20 12:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2021-09-20 12:45             ` Christoph Hellwig
  2021-09-20 12:54               ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2021-09-20 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul E. McKenney
  Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Dave Chinner, Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Boyd,
	Andrew Morton, syzbot, linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs,
	Waiman Long, Al Viro, Jens Axboe, linux-block, linux-fsdevel

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:38:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Well, the block code already does a bdi_unregister in del_gendisk.
> > So if we end up freeing the whole device bdev with a registered bdi
> > something is badly going wrong.  Unfortunately the log in this report
> > isn't much help on how we got there.  IIRC syzbot will eventually spew
> > out a reproducer, so it might be worth to wait for that.
> 
> If it does turn out that you need to block in an RCU callback,
> queue_rcu_work() can be helpful.  This schedules a workqueue from the RCU
> callback, allowing the function passed to the preceding INIT_RCU_WORK()
> to block.

In this case we really should not block here.  The problem is that
we are hitting the strange bdi auto-unregister misfeature due to a bug
elsewhere.  Which reminds that I have a patch series to remove this
auto unregistration which I need to bring bag once this is fixed.

That being said queue_rcu_work would have been really useful in a few
places I touched in that past.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
  2021-09-20 12:45             ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2021-09-20 12:54               ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2021-09-20 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christoph Hellwig
  Cc: Dave Chinner, Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Boyd, Andrew Morton,
	syzbot, linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Waiman Long,
	Al Viro, Jens Axboe, linux-block, linux-fsdevel

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:45:57PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:38:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Well, the block code already does a bdi_unregister in del_gendisk.
> > > So if we end up freeing the whole device bdev with a registered bdi
> > > something is badly going wrong.  Unfortunately the log in this report
> > > isn't much help on how we got there.  IIRC syzbot will eventually spew
> > > out a reproducer, so it might be worth to wait for that.
> > 
> > If it does turn out that you need to block in an RCU callback,
> > queue_rcu_work() can be helpful.  This schedules a workqueue from the RCU
> > callback, allowing the function passed to the preceding INIT_RCU_WORK()
> > to block.
> 
> In this case we really should not block here.  The problem is that
> we are hitting the strange bdi auto-unregister misfeature due to a bug
> elsewhere.  Which reminds that I have a patch series to remove this
> auto unregistration which I need to bring bag once this is fixed.
> 
> That being said queue_rcu_work would have been really useful in a few
> places I touched in that past.

Glad it helped elsewhere and apologies for the noise here!

							Thanx, Paul

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work
       [not found]       ` <163224949689.3714697.17466968510780664239@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
@ 2021-09-21 20:19         ` Thomas Gleixner
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2021-09-21 20:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephen Boyd, Andrew Morton, syzbot
  Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mm, syzkaller-bugs, Waiman Long,
	Paul E. McKenney, Al Viro, Jens Axboe, linux-block,
	linux-fsdevel

Stephen,

On Tue, Sep 21 2021 at 11:38, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner (2021-09-19 05:41:18)
>> Even if debug objects would support objects on irq stacks, the above is
>> still bogus. But it does not and will not because the operations here
>> have to be fully synchronous:
>> 
>>     init() -> queue() or arm() -> wait() -> destroy()
>> 
>> because you obviously cannot queue work or arm a timer which are on stack
>> and then leave the function without waiting for the operation to complete.
>
> Is there some way to make it more obvious that initializing a timer or
> work on the stack in an irq context is a NONO because we can't wait for
> it? Maybe some sort of debugobjects call to might_sleep() when it's
> being told the object is on the stack, or throwing a might_sleep() into
> the initialization of any stack based timer or workqueue, or both?

Let me have a look.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-09-21 20:19 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-09-15 17:00 [syzbot] WARNING in __init_work syzbot
2021-09-15 23:14 ` Andrew Morton
2021-09-16  2:29   ` Stephen Boyd
2021-09-19 12:41     ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-09-20  4:03       ` Dave Chinner
2021-09-20 12:28         ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-20 12:38           ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-09-20 12:45             ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-20 12:54               ` Paul E. McKenney
     [not found]       ` <163224949689.3714697.17466968510780664239@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
2021-09-21 20:19         ` Thomas Gleixner

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).