Linux kernel 4.9 wl18xx wlan0 interface isn't created. Debian stretch. #110
Comments
|
That's odd, double check that you have "bb-wl18xx-firmware" installed (since v4.4.x worked, it probally was).. BTW, what change did you do to stretch to make it work? Well, it's working on jessie, wonder if it's a gcc bug in stretch or something else.. |
|
Well, you got one problem on the first go. I didn't have bb-wl18xx-firmware installed. So, I fixed that. The behavior changed a bit, the Bluetooth: facility showed up. But, still no wlan, and no messages from wlcore. As far as making Stretch work, I don't remember exactly. These days, I can try so many things so quickly, they all blur together and I have trouble remembering what the last thing I did was. But, with blurry memory and all, I think that I was getting all sorts of odd behavior (that I don't remember the details of either) from Stretch until I looked at the ownership and permissions of the root directory "/" and found that on my sd card it was owned by 110 and not 0. Once I changed the ownership of "/" to 0, the system started to behave. I want to suspect something in the wl* module initial probe, but I haven't been able to get any messages of any sort to show up from the wl* modules. Here's the pertinent output from lsmod | grep -i wl. And also the new dmesg output |
|
Just a bit of additional information. I'm switching between kernels by just editing the uname_r value in /boot/uEnv.txt. Everything else is untouched. Same stretch image. Could be problematical, but it seemed to minimize the failure possibilities. And for the stretch image I started from. With the bone-debian-stretch-iot-armhf-2016-11-27-4gb.img mounted on a loopback, this is what I get for "ls -al ." I think the ownership and perms were causing trouble. |
|
For variety, I decided to try the Jessie image again with the 4.9.0-ti-rt-r13 version. I started with the bone-debian-8.6-iot-armhf-2016-12-18-4gb.img.xz image file, put it onto a fresh sd card, and booted it. Once the fresh image was running, I ran through the connmanctl commands to configure the wlan0, so I could get the 4.9.0 image installed. Then did an apt-get update; and an Once that was finished, I rebooted the system and got the same failure that I'm seeing on stretch. The wlan0 interface isn't created, no wl18xx or wlcore messages show up in dmesg, even though the modules are loaded. Ken |
|
Now, just to confuse things further. This morning I powered up the BBGW with stretch and the 4.9 kernel on it (after having been off all night) and the wl18xx wlan0 came up. Then, after I verified that it was running 4.9.0-ti-rt-r13, I powered it down and powered it back up again (pressed the power button on the board and waited for all the leds to go out). After the power cycle, the wl18xx wlan0 doesn't work again. While I was thinking about that I installed 4.9.0-ti-rt-r13 on the other BBGW I have (stretch too) and power cycled that board. That one works through multiple power cycles. One of the biggest disappointments in my life was when I figured out that computers aren't deterministic. Ken |
|
Well, I've tracked the failure fairly deep into the bowels of the system, but I still haven't found the fundamental cause. wlcore is where the failure shows up, seemingly a timeout in a call to wl12xx_sdio_power_restore() which calls mmc_sdio_init_card() which calls mmc_select_card(). And the second BBGW still is flawless. It comes up every time. |
|
I have a bit of an update. No resolution through... On the BBGW that generally works, I've captured a failure where the entire adapter goes down. So far, I haven't researched recovery options. If I reboot the BBGW, the adapter comes up again and works for a while. The failure generally occurs after some hours or days. There isn't a lot of traffic on the interface. (In the latest manifestation, 10Mb had been received and 1.3Mb had been transmitted). The failing messages from the system log are And the output from uname -a Ken Aaker |
RobertCNelson
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 25, 2017
Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by lockdep: [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted [ 1270.473240] ----------------------------------------------------- [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 1270.474239] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280 [ 1270.474994] [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding: [ 1270.475440] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0 [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 1270.476436] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} [ 1270.476949] [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 1270.477553] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} ... [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 1270.489327] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} ... [ 1270.494735] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 1270.494735] [ 1270.495250] CPU0 CPU1 [ 1270.495600] ---- ---- [ 1270.495947] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.496295] local_irq_disable(); [ 1270.496753] lock(&pool->lock/1); [ 1270.497205] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.497744] <Interrupt> [ 1270.497948] lock(&pool->lock/1); , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario happens. The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock held. Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the condition until the recent b9c16a0 ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail"). Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch. It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers which can easily be done with a pool flag. The only reason it became a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel managing operations. This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait queue. v2: Drop unnecessary flag clearing before pool destruction as suggested by Boqun. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> Reported-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Boqun Feng <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
RobertCNelson
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 6, 2017
commit 692b482 upstream. Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by lockdep: [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted [ 1270.473240] ----------------------------------------------------- [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 1270.474239] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280 [ 1270.474994] [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding: [ 1270.475440] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0 [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 1270.476436] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} [ 1270.476949] [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 1270.477553] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} ... [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 1270.489327] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} ... [ 1270.494735] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 1270.494735] [ 1270.495250] CPU0 CPU1 [ 1270.495600] ---- ---- [ 1270.495947] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.496295] local_irq_disable(); [ 1270.496753] lock(&pool->lock/1); [ 1270.497205] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.497744] <Interrupt> [ 1270.497948] lock(&pool->lock/1); , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario happens. The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock held. Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the condition until the recent b9c16a0 ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail"). Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch. It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers which can easily be done with a pool flag. The only reason it became a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel managing operations. This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait queue. v2: Drop unnecessary flag clearing before pool destruction as suggested by Boqun. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> Reported-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Boqun Feng <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
RobertCNelson
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 8, 2018
commit 692b482 upstream. Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by lockdep: [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted [ 1270.473240] ----------------------------------------------------- [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 1270.474239] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280 [ 1270.474994] [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding: [ 1270.475440] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0 [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 1270.476436] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} [ 1270.476949] [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 1270.477553] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} ... [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 1270.489327] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} ... [ 1270.494735] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 1270.494735] [ 1270.495250] CPU0 CPU1 [ 1270.495600] ---- ---- [ 1270.495947] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.496295] local_irq_disable(); [ 1270.496753] lock(&pool->lock/1); [ 1270.497205] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.497744] <Interrupt> [ 1270.497948] lock(&pool->lock/1); , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario happens. The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock held. Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the condition until the recent b9c16a0 ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail"). Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch. It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers which can easily be done with a pool flag. The only reason it became a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel managing operations. This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait queue. v2: Drop unnecessary flag clearing before pool destruction as suggested by Boqun. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> Reported-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Boqun Feng <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
crow-misia
pushed a commit
to crow-misia/linux
that referenced
this issue
Apr 22, 2019
[ Upstream commit 1da6c4d ] syzkaller was able to generate the following UAF in bpf: BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in lookup_last fs/namei.c:2269 [inline] BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in path_lookupat.isra.43+0x9f8/0xc00 fs/namei.c:2318 Read of size 1 at addr ffff8801c4865c47 by task syz-executor2/9423 CPU: 0 PID: 9423 Comm: syz-executor2 Not tainted 4.20.0-rc1-next-20181109+ beagleboard#110 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 Call Trace: __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline] dump_stack+0x244/0x39d lib/dump_stack.c:113 print_address_description.cold.7+0x9/0x1ff mm/kasan/report.c:256 kasan_report_error mm/kasan/report.c:354 [inline] kasan_report.cold.8+0x242/0x309 mm/kasan/report.c:412 __asan_report_load1_noabort+0x14/0x20 mm/kasan/report.c:430 lookup_last fs/namei.c:2269 [inline] path_lookupat.isra.43+0x9f8/0xc00 fs/namei.c:2318 filename_lookup+0x26a/0x520 fs/namei.c:2348 user_path_at_empty+0x40/0x50 fs/namei.c:2608 user_path include/linux/namei.h:62 [inline] do_mount+0x180/0x1ff0 fs/namespace.c:2980 ksys_mount+0x12d/0x140 fs/namespace.c:3258 __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3272 [inline] __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3269 [inline] __x64_sys_mount+0xbe/0x150 fs/namespace.c:3269 do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe RIP: 0033:0x457569 Code: fd b3 fb ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 90 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 0f 83 cb b3 fb ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 RSP: 002b:00007fde6ed96c78 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000a5 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000005 RCX: 0000000000457569 RDX: 0000000020000040 RSI: 0000000020000000 RDI: 0000000000000000 RBP: 000000000072bf00 R08: 0000000020000340 R09: 0000000000000000 R10: 0000000000200000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fde6ed976d4 R13: 00000000004c2c24 R14: 00000000004d4990 R15: 00000000ffffffff Allocated by task 9424: save_stack+0x43/0xd0 mm/kasan/kasan.c:448 set_track mm/kasan/kasan.c:460 [inline] kasan_kmalloc+0xc7/0xe0 mm/kasan/kasan.c:553 __do_kmalloc mm/slab.c:3722 [inline] __kmalloc_track_caller+0x157/0x760 mm/slab.c:3737 kstrdup+0x39/0x70 mm/util.c:49 bpf_symlink+0x26/0x140 kernel/bpf/inode.c:356 vfs_symlink+0x37a/0x5d0 fs/namei.c:4127 do_symlinkat+0x242/0x2d0 fs/namei.c:4154 __do_sys_symlink fs/namei.c:4173 [inline] __se_sys_symlink fs/namei.c:4171 [inline] __x64_sys_symlink+0x59/0x80 fs/namei.c:4171 do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe Freed by task 9425: save_stack+0x43/0xd0 mm/kasan/kasan.c:448 set_track mm/kasan/kasan.c:460 [inline] __kasan_slab_free+0x102/0x150 mm/kasan/kasan.c:521 kasan_slab_free+0xe/0x10 mm/kasan/kasan.c:528 __cache_free mm/slab.c:3498 [inline] kfree+0xcf/0x230 mm/slab.c:3817 bpf_evict_inode+0x11f/0x150 kernel/bpf/inode.c:565 evict+0x4b9/0x980 fs/inode.c:558 iput_final fs/inode.c:1550 [inline] iput+0x674/0xa90 fs/inode.c:1576 do_unlinkat+0x733/0xa30 fs/namei.c:4069 __do_sys_unlink fs/namei.c:4110 [inline] __se_sys_unlink fs/namei.c:4108 [inline] __x64_sys_unlink+0x42/0x50 fs/namei.c:4108 do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe In this scenario path lookup under RCU is racing with the final unlink in case of symlinks. As Linus puts it in his analysis: [...] We actually RCU-delay the inode freeing itself, but when we do the final iput(), the "evict()" function is called synchronously. Now, the simple fix would seem to just RCU-delay the kfree() of the symlink data in bpf_evict_inode(). Maybe that's the right thing to do. [...] Al suggested to piggy-back on the ->destroy_inode() callback in order to implement RCU deferral there which can then kfree() the inode->i_link eventually right before putting inode back into inode cache. By reusing free_inode_nonrcu() from there we can avoid the need for our own inode cache and just reuse generic one as we currently do. And in-fact on top of all this we should just get rid of the bpf_evict_inode() entirely. This means truncate_inode_pages_final() and clear_inode() will then simply be called by the fs core via evict(). Dropping the reference should really only be done when inode is unhashed and nothing reachable anymore, so it's better also moved into the final ->destroy_inode() callback. Fixes: 0f98621 ("bpf, inode: add support for symlinks and fix mtime/ctime") Reported-by: [email protected] Reported-by: [email protected] Reported-by: [email protected] Suggested-by: Al Viro <[email protected]> Analyzed-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> Acked-by: Al Viro <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/T/ Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin (Microsoft) <[email protected]>
|
Please re-open if still an issue with our current Debian images: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I've gotten the Debian Stretch system installed and booting on two Beaglebone Green Wireless boards, but when I switch the kernel from 4.4.26-ti-r59 to 4.9.0-ti-rt-r13 the wl18xx module doesn't materialize any interface.
The modules seem to get loaded, but I don't see any messages from the wl modules in dmesg. I've looked at the device tree a bit, but I don't know exactly what I'm looking for and there are many differences. Here's the uname-a and dmesg output.
By the way, I had some trouble getting Stretch to work until I changed the install root file ownership back to root (it was something like 110, if I remember correctly).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: