Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp3850787ybi; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxChfYK98T9vwaPDRY7WoIwo+CaefHe/LZa5lLC4/U6No4//WmPs0GOFQ1H6cwAdRdI4DCM X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:32ec:: with SMTP id l99mr27711148pjb.44.1563172406108; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:33:26 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1563172406; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GQARnbXO7nsskkZAAyPT2758/qpt1dJI/6bvVHIqmzykHPJ6yKRegUITUz5UYyrrBh omhxNtRvUDGrJn7rRZM3U//wIHZnEHFiWJ/wgYEQ/DGKiQmmaZCMC6jVeiNqJJ19JO77 jqqI7hzHPfnH2pNyS1Lfo3+NJIpMuVRzW8lnz4mgnA1KlCyLOWJe+f6FBTjPOHx6PUcC VROo6fqgGMAdzw/AO2d9LkMxr+rL1r8szrg2/Hs6QbQBRO/3eiJN79T3jBsT5KuTK5Pe 3L/+i9JwqSqHzdohL5PzDZ77k/U4D5lLBFeFY4Im7HTBwHYTjXj6+G7abnAjpVPsLvbh zLaQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:cc:references:to :subject; bh=FEIH5N73iFDUdCs6wLMB5fggp+pq3Qy+h+IEikoZYAk=; b=Ds5LlZ9MIoau+LymUX1SBpsE8H0XcQnI7735T5OZiHphxc16mnfIjVqY4ruRJ46gK+ XslmYY3eycs/xbcmJ658qUn32Yq9WaLd+s1jpbqDQOuHrfEZIZc8KdOozJsUamhtNnvC 9JdOBpK/QJRkOgmrC8PDKJYuT2lTiDvi+SQqgq6h8EC0GoAA7bgubigFLmMLxgG3Nyzh YDMiL4ohRjgQLvKjA/NHeGDIX5oOZzQC0OLQXN+NjJsgN6O/5Khlp2fFFr3aSp0osPXI IPogfbsBPF7K5R4q+gDp7WNUkOraL2hcpMTHOqlB7x5riecnGKSJF04eC4oEpB4IeOS4 GUtQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w23si15635731pgl.141.2019.07.14.23.33.07; Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:33:26 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728967AbfGOGcp (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 15 Jul 2019 02:32:45 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:47390 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726425AbfGOGcp (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2019 02:32:45 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS402-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8905DF73582B4D07A654; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:32:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.133.216.73) by DGGEMS402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:32:33 +0800 Subject: Re: ARM/gic-v4: deadlock occurred To: Marc Zyngier References: <9efe0260-4a84-7489-ecdd-2e9561599320@huawei.com> <86lfzl9ofe.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <0b413592-7d98-ebe8-35c5-da330f800326@huawei.com> <86a7fx9lg8.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <4d60d130-b7ce-96cb-5f8a-11e83329601a@huawei.com> <868svg9igl.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20190713123704.2d8a308c@why> CC: , wanghaibin 00208455 , kvmarm From: Guoheyi Message-ID: <2697d96e-8f84-6a45-521a-d2270b6be1eb@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 14:32:31 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190713123704.2d8a308c@why> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.133.216.73] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Marc, The issue only occurs after applying the vlpi_map_rework patches, and we can see the patches only affect VM; it changes its_create_device() a little so it may affect host booting in some ways, so I took the lazy way to send it out for some insights. I am suspecting below code; if alloc_lpis == false, what will happen? Anyway, I will investigate more on this. if (alloc_lpis) { lpi_map = its_lpi_alloc(nvecs, &lpi_base, &nr_lpis); if (lpi_map) col_map = kcalloc(nr_lpis, sizeof(*col_map), GFP_KERNEL); } else { col_map = kcalloc(nr_ites, sizeof(*col_map), GFP_KERNEL); nr_lpis = 0; lpi_base = 0; } if (its->is_v4) vlpi_map = kcalloc(nr_lpis, sizeof(*vlpi_map), GFP_KERNEL); if (!dev || !itt || !col_map || (!lpi_map && alloc_lpis) || (!vlpi_map && its->is_v4)) { kfree(dev); kfree(itt); kfree(lpi_map); kfree(col_map); kfree(vlpi_map); return NULL; } Thanks, Heyi On 2019/7/13 19:37, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 19:08:57 +0800 > Guoheyi wrote: > > Hi Heyi, > >> Hi Marc, >> >> Really sorry for the delay of testing the rework patches. I picked up >> the work these days and applied the patches to our 4.19.36 stable >> branch. However, I got below panic during the boot process of host >> (not yet to boot guests). >> >> I supposed the result was not related with my testing kernel version, >> for we don't have many differences in ITS driver; I can test against >> mainline if you think it is necessary. > In general, please report bugs against mainline. There isn't much I can > do about your private tree... > > That being said, a couple of comments below. > >> Thanks, >> >> Heyi >> >> >> [ 16.990413] iommu: Adding device 0000:00:00.0 to group 6 >> [ 17.000691] pcieport 0000:00:00.0: Signaling PME with IRQ 133 >> [ 17.006456] pcieport 0000:00:00.0: AER enabled with IRQ 134 >> [ 17.012151] iommu: Adding device 0000:00:08.0 to group 7 >> [ 17.018575] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 00686361635f746f >> [ 17.026467] Mem abort info: >> [ 17.029251] ESR = 0x96000004 >> [ 17.032313] Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits >> [ 17.038207] SET = 0, FnV = 0 >> [ 17.041258] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 >> [ 17.044391] Data abort info: >> [ 17.047260] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004 >> [ 17.051081] CM = 0, WnR = 0 >> [ 17.054035] [00686361635f746f] address between user and kernel address ranges >> [ 17.061140] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] SMP >> [ 17.065997] Process kworker/0:4 (pid: 889, stack limit = 0x(____ptrval____)) >> [ 17.073013] CPU: 0 PID: 889 Comm: kworker/0:4 Not tainted 4.19.36+ #8 >> [ 17.079422] Hardware name: Huawei TaiShan 2280 V2/BC82AMDC, BIOS 0.52 06/20/2019 >> [ 17.086788] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn >> [ 17.091126] pstate: 20c00009 (nzCv daif +PAN +UAO) >> [ 17.095895] pc : __kmalloc_track_caller+0xb0/0x2a0 >> [ 17.100662] lr : __kmalloc_track_caller+0x64/0x2a0 >> [ 17.105429] sp : ffff00002920ba00 >> [ 17.108728] x29: ffff00002920ba00 x28: ffff802cb6792780 >> [ 17.114015] x27: 00000000006080c0 x26: 00000000006000c0 >> [ 17.119302] x25: ffff0000084c8a00 x24: ffff802cbfc0fc00 >> [ 17.124588] x23: ffff802cbfc0fc00 x22: ffff0000084c8a00 >> [ 17.129875] x21: 0000000000000004 x20: 00000000006000c0 >> [ 17.135161] x19: 65686361635f746f x18: ffffffffffffffff >> [ 17.140448] x17: 000000000000000e x16: 0000000000000007 >> [ 17.145734] x15: ffff000009119708 x14: 0000000000000000 >> [ 17.151021] x13: 0000000000000003 x12: 0000000000000000 >> [ 17.156307] x11: 0000000005f5e0ff x10: ffff00002920bb80 >> [ 17.161594] x9 : 00000000ffffffd0 x8 : 0000000000000098 >> [ 17.166880] x7 : ffff00002920bb80 x6 : ffff000008a8cb98 >> [ 17.172167] x5 : 000000000000a705 x4 : ffff803f802d22e0 >> [ 17.177453] x3 : ffff00002920b990 x2 : ffff7e00b2dafd00 >> [ 17.182740] x1 : 0000803f77476000 x0 : 0000000000000000 >> [ 17.188027] Call trace: >> [ 17.190461] __kmalloc_track_caller+0xb0/0x2a0 >> [ 17.194886] kvasprintf+0x7c/0x108 >> [ 17.198271] kasprintf+0x60/0x80 >> [ 17.201488] populate_msi_sysfs+0xe4/0x250 >> [ 17.205564] __pci_enable_msi_range+0x278/0x450 >> [ 17.210073] pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity+0xd4/0x110 >> [ 17.215188] pcie_port_device_register+0x134/0x558 >> [ 17.219955] pcie_portdrv_probe+0x3c/0xf0 >> [ 17.223947] local_pci_probe+0x44/0xa8 >> [ 17.227679] work_for_cpu_fn+0x20/0x30 >> [ 17.231411] process_one_work+0x1b4/0x3f8 >> [ 17.235401] worker_thread+0x210/0x470 >> [ 17.239134] kthread+0x134/0x138 >> [ 17.242348] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 >> [ 17.245907] Code: f100005f fa401a64 54000bc0 b9402300 (f8606a66) >> [ 17.251970] kernel fault(0x1) notification starting on CPU 0 >> [ 17.257602] kernel fault(0x1) notification finished on CPU 0 >> [ 17.263234] Modules linked in: >> [ 17.266277] ---[ end trace 023e6b19cb68b94f ]--- > What in this trace makes you think that this has anything to do with an > ITS change? The system crashes in a completely unrelated piece of code. > Also, if you look at the VA that indicates the crash, it should be > obvious that this isn't a kernel address. Worse, this is a piece of > ASCII text: > > $ echo 00686361635f746f | xxd -r -p > hcac_to > > This tends to indicate some memory form of corruption ("hcac_to" looks > like the begining of a symbol), and I'm not sure how the ITS would be > involved in this... Furthermore, this happens on the host at boot time, > while the patch you suspect only affects VMs... > > I think you need to spend more time analysing this issue. > > Thanks, > > M.