John, Am 02.08.2016 um 18:17 schrieb John Stultz: > I'm trying to run UML with recent upstream kernels, and I've been > seeing the following BUG trigger over and over:
Geez, I forgot to pickup my own patch. ;-\ Can you try https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09775.html? Thanks, //richard > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.h:393 > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 0, name: swapper > CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Tainted: G W 4.7.0-09120-ge48af7a > #794 > Stack: > 603e1d20 60069689 600976ea 6002fb08 > 00000000 00000000 603e1d30 601c6336 > 603e1d80 60058225 603e1d60 603e4e50 > Call Trace: > [<600976ea>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<6001d345>] show_stack+0xfe/0x158 > [<60069689>] ? dump_stack_print_info+0xe1/0xea > [<600976ea>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<6002fb08>] ? get_signals+0x0/0xf > [<601c6336>] dump_stack+0x2a/0x2c > [<60058225>] ___might_sleep+0x181/0x18c > [<60058307>] __might_sleep+0xd7/0xe2 > [<60069fa1>] ? handle_irq_event+0x56/0x6a > [<600cf35f>] __kmalloc+0x5a/0x121 > [<6001bc10>] uml_kmalloc+0x13/0x15 > [<6002e19d>] __wrap_malloc+0x3f/0x71 > [<6002fa46>] sig_handler_common+0x3e/0x100 > [<6002fa08>] ? sig_handler_common+0x0/0x100 > [<6002f944>] ? block_signals+0x0/0x16 > [<600976ea>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<6002f9c5>] unblock_signals+0x6b/0xae > [<601cc073>] ? strlen+0x0/0x16 > [<6001c35b>] arch_cpu_idle+0x53/0x5a > [<601cc073>] ? strlen+0x0/0x16 > [<6006029d>] default_idle_call+0x32/0x34 > [<6007db99>] ? tick_nohz_idle_enter+0x75/0x77 > [<60060353>] cpu_startup_entry+0xb4/0x11d > [<6006009e>] ? complete+0x0/0x5a > [<600382ec>] ? kernel_thread+0x0/0x2d > [<600382ec>] ? kernel_thread+0x0/0x2d > [<602fe646>] rest_init+0xa7/0xae > [<6002fb08>] ? get_signals+0x0/0xf > [<6002fb08>] ? get_signals+0x0/0xf > [<60001bc0>] start_kernel+0x529/0x538 > [<60003626>] start_kernel_proc+0x49/0x4d > [<600660b8>] ? kmsg_dump_register+0x84/0x93 > [<6001bf03>] new_thread_handler+0x81/0xa3 > [<600035db>] ? kmsg_dumper_stdout_init+0x1a/0x1c > [<6001ee17>] uml_finishsetup+0x54/0x59 > > > > I tried to bisect it down, and it apparently popped up in the v4.7 > merge window, with the following commit: > > b6024b21fec8 ("um: extend fpstate to _xstate to support YMM > registers") which adds a malloc call to the sig_handler > > > Unfortunately just reverting that patch against v4.7 doesn't work, as > I then hit: > > This architecture does not have kernel memory protection. > Registers - > 0 0x2 > 1 0x0 > 2 0x0 > 3 0x0 > 4 0x0 > 5 0x0 > 6 0x0 > 7 0x0 > 8 0x0 > 9 0x0 > 10 0x0 > 11 0x0 > 12 0x0 > 13 0x0 > 14 0x0 > 15 0x0 > 16 0x10007b > 17 0x0 > 18 0x0 > 19 0x0 > 20 0x0 > 21 0x0 > 22 0x0 > 23 0x0 > 24 0x0 > 25 0x0 > 26 0x0 > Kernel panic - not syncing: do_syscall_stub : PTRACE_SETREGS failed, errno = 5 > > CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.7.0-00001-g0a9f717 #795 > Stack: > 80455be0 60068d01 601ce033 60373c73 > 807928f0 60096cdf 80455bf0 601c4109 > 80455d10 600960cd 00002458 807928f0 > Call Trace: > [<60096cdf>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<6001d345>] show_stack+0xfe/0x158 > [<60068d01>] ? dump_stack_print_info+0xe1/0xea > [<601ce033>] ? bust_spinlocks+0x0/0x4f > [<60096cdf>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<601c4109>] dump_stack+0x2a/0x2c > [<600960cd>] panic+0x163/0x2f0 > [<60095f6a>] ? panic+0x0/0x2f0 > [<60096cdf>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<60096cdf>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<60057bb9>] ? __might_sleep+0xd7/0xe2 > [<6003191a>] run_syscall_stub+0x145/0x2d4 > [<60096cdf>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<600cda05>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x0/0xff > [<6003302e>] write_ldt_entry+0x84/0x8f > [<60033298>] init_new_ldt+0x25f/0x350 > [<600cda05>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x0/0xff > [<6001f165>] init_new_context+0x102/0x14e > [<6009fa4a>] ? __get_free_pages+0x1c/0x5a > [<60063cc9>] ? __raw_spin_lock_init+0x0/0x1e > [<600359bf>] mm_init+0x1cc/0x211 > [<600cdad3>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xce/0xff > [<60035e73>] mm_alloc+0x62/0x6d > [<600da275>] do_execveat_common+0x2b3/0x65e > [<600da641>] do_execve+0x21/0x23 > [<6001a6d8>] run_init_process+0x3b/0x3f > [<6001a69d>] ? run_init_process+0x0/0x3f > [<60096cdf>] ? printk+0x0/0x94 > [<602f9b5c>] kernel_init+0xbf/0x156 > [<6001bf03>] new_thread_handler+0x81/0xa3 > > > Any thoughts on how to get around this? > > thanks > -john >
