Aufs kernel panics #121
Comments
|
Latest release from github. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015, 3:49 AM Uli Middelberg [email protected]
|
|
Uli Middelberg:
This is a well known generic issue on linux kernel. If you want to enable LOCKDEP with aufs, then you need to increase these
J. R. Okajima |
|
@sfjro Thank you very much for the fast reply @paralin The latest release from github (1.8.0) requires additional patches |
mdrjr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 5, 2019
[ Upstream commit 80bf6ce ] When we get into activate_mm(), lockdep complains that we're doing something strange: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.1.0-10252-gb00152307319-dirty #121 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ inside.sh/366 is trying to acquire lock: (____ptrval____) (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7 but task is already holding lock: (____ptrval____) (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: flush_old_exec+0x6c5/0x8d7 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: [...] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e down_write+0x3f/0x98 flush_old_exec+0x748/0x8d7 load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb [...] -> #0 (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+.}: [...] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x83 flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7 load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb [...] other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&mm->mmap_sem); lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by inside.sh/366: #0: (____ptrval____) (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.}, at: __do_execve_file+0x12d/0x869 #1: (____ptrval____) (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: flush_old_exec+0x6c5/0x8d7 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 366 Comm: inside.sh Not tainted 5.1.0-10252-gb00152307319-dirty #121 Stack: [...] Call Trace: [<600420de>] show_stack+0x13b/0x155 [<6048906b>] dump_stack+0x2a/0x2c [<6009ae64>] print_circular_bug+0x332/0x343 [<6009c5c6>] check_prev_add+0x669/0xdad [<600a06b4>] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f [<6009f3d0>] lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e [<604a07e0>] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x83 [<60151e6a>] flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7 [<601a8eb8>] load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb [...] I think it's because in exec_mmap() we have down_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem); ... task_lock(tsk); ... activate_mm(active_mm, mm); (which does down_write(&mm->mmap_sem)) I'm not really sure why lockdep throws in the whole knowledge about the task lock, but it seems that old_mm and mm shouldn't ever be the same (and it doesn't deadlock) so tell lockdep that they're different. Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
mdrjr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 29, 2019
[ Upstream commit 80bf6ce ] When we get into activate_mm(), lockdep complains that we're doing something strange: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.1.0-10252-gb00152307319-dirty #121 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ inside.sh/366 is trying to acquire lock: (____ptrval____) (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7 but task is already holding lock: (____ptrval____) (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: flush_old_exec+0x6c5/0x8d7 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: [...] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e down_write+0x3f/0x98 flush_old_exec+0x748/0x8d7 load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb [...] -> #0 (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+.}: [...] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x83 flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7 load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb [...] other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&mm->mmap_sem); lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by inside.sh/366: #0: (____ptrval____) (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.}, at: __do_execve_file+0x12d/0x869 #1: (____ptrval____) (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: flush_old_exec+0x6c5/0x8d7 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 366 Comm: inside.sh Not tainted 5.1.0-10252-gb00152307319-dirty #121 Stack: [...] Call Trace: [<600420de>] show_stack+0x13b/0x155 [<6048906b>] dump_stack+0x2a/0x2c [<6009ae64>] print_circular_bug+0x332/0x343 [<6009c5c6>] check_prev_add+0x669/0xdad [<600a06b4>] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f [<6009f3d0>] lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e [<604a07e0>] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x83 [<60151e6a>] flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7 [<601a8eb8>] load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb [...] I think it's because in exec_mmap() we have down_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem); ... task_lock(tsk); ... activate_mm(active_mm, mm); (which does down_write(&mm->mmap_sem)) I'm not really sure why lockdep throws in the whole knowledge about the task lock, but it seems that old_mm and mm shouldn't ever be the same (and it doesn't deadlock) so tell lockdep that they're different. Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I think there might be an issue with the aufs merge into the odroid-xu3 branch.
I looked up this error online and it was said that it was due to a buggy implementation in the kernel.
Any ideas?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: