Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e0611057-1b5b-9990-b9fa-060a9b5eba40@linux.ee>
In-Reply-To: <e0611057-1b5b-9990-b9fa-060a9b5eba40@linux.ee>
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 22:34:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpU0+LVwgMea32KQWf8z6Bp1VTmWOGnWNwNSmV0PZzf_ew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: netconsole warning in 4.19.0-rc7
To:     Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

(Cc'ing Dave)

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:14 AM Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> wrote:
>
> Thies 4.19-rc7 on a bunch of test machines and got this warning from one.
> It is reproducible and I have not noticed it before.
>
[...]
> [    9.914805] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at kernel/softirq.c:168 __local_bh_enable_ip+0x2e/0x44
> [    9.914806] Modules linked in:
> [    9.914808] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 4.19.0-rc7 #210
> [    9.914810] Hardware name: MicroLink                       /D850MV                         , BIOS MV85010A.86A.0067.P24.0304081124 04/08/2003
> [    9.914811] EIP: __local_bh_enable_ip+0x2e/0x44
> [    9.914813] Code: cc 02 5f c8 a9 00 00 0f 00 75 1f 83 ea 01 f7 da 01 15 cc 02 5f c8 a1 cc 02 5f c8 a9 00 ff 1f 00 74 0c ff 0d cc 02 5f c8 5d c3 <0f> 0b eb dd 66 a1 80 cd 5e c8 66 85 c0 74 e9 e8 87 ff ff ff eb e2
> [    9.914814] EAX: 80010200 EBX: f602b000 ECX: 36346270 EDX: 00000200
> [    9.914815] ESI: f620ecc0 EDI: f620ebac EBP: f600de40 ESP: f600de40
> [    9.914816] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 00e0 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: 00010006
> [    9.914817] CR0: 80050033 CR2: b7f5f000 CR3: 36389000 CR4: 000006d0
> [    9.914818] Call Trace:
> [    9.914819]  <IRQ>
> [    9.914820]  netpoll_send_skb_on_dev+0xa5/0x1b0

This is exactly what I mentioned in my review here:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=153816136624679&w=2

"But irq is disabled here, so not sure if rcu_read_lock_bh()
could cause trouble... "