On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 04:08:55AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 02:40:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 10:38:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 04 2021 at 12:05, syzbot wrote:
> > > 
> > > Cc + ...
> > 
> > And a couple more...
> > 
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > syzbot found the following issue on:
> > > >
> > > > HEAD commit:    5e46d1b7 reiserfs: update reiserfs_xattrs_initialized() 
> > > > co..
> > > > git tree:       upstream
> > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1125f831d00000
> > > > kernel config:  
> > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=78ef1d159159890
> > > > dashboard link: 
> > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=88e4f02896967fe1ab0d
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > > >
> > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the 
> > > > commit:
> > > > Reported-by: syzbot+88e4f02896967fe1a...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > =============================
> > > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > > 5.12.0-rc5-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> > > > -----------------------------
> > > > kernel/sched/core.c:8294 Illegal context switch in RCU-sched read-side 
> > > > critical section!
> > > >
> > > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 0
> > > > 3 locks held by syz-executor.4/8418:
> > > >  #0: 
> > > > ffff8880751d2b28
> > > >  (
> > > > &p->pi_lock
> > > > ){-.-.}-{2:2}
> > > > , at: try_to_wake_up+0x98/0x14a0 kernel/sched/core.c:3345
> > > >  #1: 
> > > > ffff8880b9d35258
> > > >  (
> > > > &rq->lock
> > > > ){-.-.}-{2:2}
> > > > , at: rq_lock kernel/sched/sched.h:1321 [inline]
> > > > , at: ttwu_queue kernel/sched/core.c:3184 [inline]
> > > > , at: try_to_wake_up+0x5e6/0x14a0 kernel/sched/core.c:3464
> > > >  #2: ffff8880b9d1f948 (&per_cpu_ptr(group->pcpu, 
> > > > cpu)->seq){-.-.}-{0:0}, at: psi_task_change+0x142/0x220 
> > > > kernel/sched/psi.c:807
> > 
> > This looks similar to syzbot+dde0cc33951735441...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > in that rcu_sleep_check() sees an RCU lock held, but the later call to
> > lockdep_print_held_locks() does not.  Did something change recently that
> > could let the ->lockdep_depth counter get out of sync with the actual
> > number of locks held?
> 
> Dmitri had a different theory here:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/g/syzkaller-bugs/c/FmYvfZCZzqA/m/nc2CXUgsAgAJ

There is always room for more than one bug.  ;-)

He says "one-off false positives".  I was afraid of that...

                                                        Thanx, Paul

Reply via email to