|
__d_rehash is dereferencing an almost-NULL pointer on my ARM926.
CONFIG_SMP=n and CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=y.
The faulting instruction is: strne r3, [r2, #4]
and as can be seen from the register dump below, r2 is 0x00000001, hence
the faulting 0x00000005 address.
__d_rehash is essentially:
spin_lock_bucket(b);
entry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_UNHASHED;
hlist_bl_add_head_rcu(&entry->d_hash, &b->head);
spin_unlock_bucket(b);
which is:
bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)&b->head.first);
entry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_UNHASHED;
hlist_bl_add_head_rcu(&entry->d_hash, &b->head);
__bit_spin_unlock(0, (unsigned long *)&b->head.first);
bit_spin_lock(0, ptr) sets bit 0 of *ptr, in this case b->head.first if
CONFIG_SMP or CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK is set:
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
while (unlikely(test_and_set_bit_lock(bitnum, addr))) {
while (test_bit(bitnum, addr)) {
preempt_enable();
cpu_relax();
preempt_disable();
}
}
#endif
So, b->head.first starts off NULL, and becomes a non-NULL (address 1).
hlist_bl_add_head_rcu() does this:
static inline void hlist_bl_add_head_rcu(struct hlist_bl_node *n,
struct hlist_bl_head *h)
{
first = hlist_bl_first(h);
n->next = first;
if (first)
first->pprev = &n->next;
It is the store to first->pprev which is faulting.
hlist_bl_first():
static inline struct hlist_bl_node *hlist_bl_first(struct hlist_bl_head *h)
{
return (struct hlist_bl_node *)
((unsigned long)h->first & ~LIST_BL_LOCKMASK);
}
but:
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP)
#define LIST_BL_LOCKMASK 1UL
#else
#define LIST_BL_LOCKMASK 0UL
#endif
So, we have one piece of code which sets bit 0 of addresses, and another
bit of code which doesn't clear it before dereferencing the pointer if
!CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK. With the patch below, I can again
sucessfully boot the kernel on my Versatile PB/926 platform.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Po-Yu Chuang <ratbert.chuang@gmail.com> noticed that hlist_bl_set_first could
crash on a UP system when LIST_BL_LOCKMASK is 0, because
LIST_BL_BUG_ON(!((unsigned long)h->first & LIST_BL_LOCKMASK));
always evaulates to true.
Fix the expression, and also avoid a dependency between bit spinlock
implementation and list bl code (list code shouldn't know anything
except that bit 0 is set when adding and removing elements). Eventually
if a good use case comes up, we might use this list to store 1 or more
arbitrary bits of data, so it really shouldn't be tied to locking either,
but for now they are helpful for debugging.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
|
