I attempted some analysis, but I couldn't find which lock is causing
nr_list_entries == 32768.
Since "struct lock_list list_entries[MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES]" is marked as
"static" variable in lockdep.c ,
none of /proc/lockdep_stats /proc/lockdep /proc/lockdep_chains can report which
lock is
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 2:56 AM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
> Peter, you guessed that the culprit is sysfs at
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200916115057.go2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> , but
> syzbot reported at
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=MachineInfo=99b8f2b092d9714f
> that
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 2:56 AM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/20 18:27, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > Peter, so far it looks like just a very large, but normal graph to me.
> > The cheapest from an engineering point of view solution would be just
> > to increase the constants. I assume a 2x
On 2020/11/20 18:27, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Peter, so far it looks like just a very large, but normal graph to me.
> The cheapest from an engineering point of view solution would be just
> to increase the constants. I assume a 2x increase should buy us lots
> of time to overflow.
> I can think of
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:22 AM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Tetsuo Handa
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2020/11/19 22:06, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am trying
On 2020/11/19 23:30, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> p.s. it's indeed huge, full log was 11MB, this probably won't be
> chewed by syzbot.
Is "cat /proc/lockdep*" output written from userspace?
Then, we could try "xz -9" + "base64" for recording.
> Peter, are these [hex numbers] needed? Could we strip
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 3:30 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Tetsuo Handa
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020/11/19 22:06, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > >
> > > I am trying to reproduce this locally first. syzbot caims it can
> > > reproduce it with a number
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/19 22:06, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> I am trying to reproduce this locally first. syzbot caims it can
> reproduce it with a number of very simpler reproducers (like spawn
> process, unshare, create socket):
>
On 2020/11/19 22:06, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
I am trying to reproduce this locally first. syzbot caims it can
reproduce it with a number of very simpler reproducers (like spawn
process, unshare, create socket):
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:49 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:43 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:32 PM Tetsuo Handa
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2020/11/19 0:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:30:05PM +0900, Tetsuo
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:43 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:32 PM Tetsuo Handa
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2020/11/19 0:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:30:05PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > >> The problem is that we can't know what exactly is
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:33 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:32 PM Tetsuo Handa
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020/11/19 0:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:30:05PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >> The problem is that we can't know what exactly is consuming
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:32 PM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/19 0:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:30:05PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> The problem is that we can't know what exactly is consuming these
> >> resources.
> >> My question is do you have a plan to
On 2020/11/19 0:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:30:05PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> The problem is that we can't know what exactly is consuming these resources.
>> My question is do you have a plan to make it possible to know what exactly is
>> consuming these resources.
>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:30:05PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> The problem is that we can't know what exactly is consuming these resources.
> My question is do you have a plan to make it possible to know what exactly is
> consuming these resources.
I'm pretty sure it's in /proc/lockdep*
The problem is that we can't know what exactly is consuming these resources.
My question is do you have a plan to make it possible to know what exactly is
consuming these resources.
On 2020/11/18 23:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:57:08PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:57:08PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Peter, do you have a plan to make this problem actionable?
I don't even know what the problem is.. nor do you. You can keep sending
this bad paper-over-issues patch until you're blue in the face, I'll not
take it for reasons I've
Peter, do you have a plan to make this problem actionable?
On 2020/10/18 22:02, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Peter, what do you think? Can we apply this patch?
>
> A potential for-now workaround for syzkaller would be to allow syzkaller
> not to encounter the BUG: message (by masking BUG: message on
Peter, what do you think? Can we apply this patch?
A potential for-now workaround for syzkaller would be to allow syzkaller
not to encounter the BUG: message (by masking BUG: message on the kernel
side) when hitting these limits, for continue testing until the kernel
crashes (due to other bugs
Since syzkaller continues various test cases until the kernel crashes,
syzkaller tends to examine more locking dependencies than normal systems.
As a result, syzbot is reporting that the fuzz testing was terminated
due to hitting upper limits lockdep can track [1] [2] [3].
Peter Zijlstra does not
20 matches
Mail list logo
