freebsd-5.4-stable panics

[John Baldwin]

On Friday 30 September 2005 05:24 am, Antoine Pelisse wrote:
>  Hi Robert,
> I don't think your patch is correct, the total linked list can be broken
> while the lock is released, thus just passing the link may not be enough
> I have submitted a PR[1] for this a month ago but nobody took care of it
> yet Regards,
> Antoine Pelisse
>
> [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/84684

I think this patch looks ok.  Robert, can you get the original panic on this 
thread tested against this patch?

>   On 9/29/05, Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Rob Watt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Robert Watson wrote:
> > >> Could you dump the contents of *td and *td->td_proc for me? I'm quite
> > >> interested to know what the value in td->td_proc->p_state is, among
> >
> > other
> >
> > >> things. If I could also have you generate a dump of the KSE group
> > >> structures in td->td_proc->p_ksegrps and the threads in
> > >> td->td_proc->p_threads.
> > >
> > > I've attached a file with many of the values you have asked for. We
> > > looked at some of the threads referenced by td->td_proc->p_threads, but
> > > we weren't sure we were walking the list correctly. Do you have any
> > > tips
> > >
> > > for walking those thread lists?
> > >
> > >> Could you tell me if the program named by p->p_comm is linked against
> > >> a threading library? If it's a custom app, you may already know, and
> > >> if not, you can run ldd on the application to see what it is linked
> > >> against.
> > >
> > > The programs named by p->p_comm is linked against the pthreads library.
> >
> > This seems to be enough information to at least track this down a bit:
> > td_ksegrp is NULL, rather than a corrupt value, which suggests that the
> > thread is incompletely initialized. Other hints that this are the case
> > are that td_critnest is 1 (as is set when it is allocated), and the state
> > is TDS_INACTIVE. Some other fields are set though, such as td_oncpu,
> > which is normally initialized to NOCPU.
> >
> > > (kgdb) p *td
> > > $1 = {td_proc = 0xffffff004aa9f000, td_ksegrp = 0x0, td_plist =
> > > {tqe_next = 0xff ffff00b4798000,
> > > tqe_prev = 0xffffff00a97ae010}, td_kglist = {tqe_next =
> > > 0xffffff00b4798000,
> > > tqe_prev = 0xffffff00a97ae020}, td_slpq = {tqe_next = 0x0, tqe_prev
> > > = 0xffff ff001fac7c10}, td_lockq = {
> > > tqe_next = 0xffffff00a97ae000, tqe_prev = 0xffffffffb6797a70},
> > > td_runq = {tq e_next = 0x0,
> > > tqe_prev = 0xffffffff80608180}, td_selq = {tqh_first = 0x0, tqh_last
> > > = 0xfff fff00633112c0},
> > > td_sleepqueue = 0xffffff00382b0400, td_turnstile = 0xffffff00c1712900,
> > > td_umtx q = 0xffffff00d1207080,
> > > td_tid = 100253, td_flags = 16777216, td_inhibitors = 0, td_pflags =
> > > 128, td_d upfd = 0, td_wchan = 0x0,
> > > td_wmesg = 0x0, td_lastcpu = 2 '\002', td_oncpu = 2 '\002',
> > > td_owepreempt = 0 '\0', td_locks = 0,
> > > td_blocked = 0x0, td_ithd = 0x0, td_lockname = 0x0, td_contested =
> > > {lh_first =
> > > 0x0}, td_sleeplocks = 0x0,
> > > td_intr_nesting_level = 0, td_pinned = 0, td_mailbox = 0x0, td_ucred =
> > > 0xfffff f00ad18f200,
> > > td_standin = 0x0, td_upcall = 0x0, td_sticks = 0, td_uuticks = 0,
> > > td_usticks =
> > > 0, td_intrval = 0,
> > > td_oldsigmask = {__bits = {0, 0, 0, 0}}, td_sigmask = {__bits =
> > > {4294967295, 4 294967295, 4294967295,
> > > 4294967295}}, td_siglist = {__bits = {0, 0, 0, 0}}, td_generation
> > > = 14, td _sigstk = {ss_sp = 0x0,
> > > ss_size = 0, ss_flags = 0}, td_kflags = 0, td_xsig = 0,
> > > td_profil_addr = 0, td_profil_ticks = 0,
> > > td_base_pri = 182 '\uffff', td_priority = 182 '\uffff', td_pcb =
> > > 0xffffffffb68 dcd10, td_state = TDS_INACTIVE,
> > > td_retval = {1, 29309280}, td_slpcallout = {c_links = {sle = {sle_next
> > > = 0x0},
> > > tqe = {tqe_next = 0x0,
> > > tqe_prev = 0xffffff001fac7d80}}, c_time = 55907602, c_arg =
> > > 0xffffff0063 311260,
> > > c_func = 0xffffffff802e32a0 <sleepq_timeout>, c_mtx = 0x0, c_flags =
> > > 16}, td _frame = 0xffffffffb68dcc40,
> > > td_kstack_obj = 0xffffff0087f93d20, td_kstack = 18446744072477315072,
> > > td_kstac k_pages = 4,
> > > td_altkstack_obj = 0x0, td_altkstack = 0, td_altkstack_pages = 0,
> > > td_critnest = 1, td_md = {
> > > md_spinlock_count = 1, md_saved_flags = 582}, td_sched =
> > > 0xffffff0063311488}
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the internals of the thread and KSE life cycle
> > here,
> >
> > so I think we'll need to look to those more familiar with this to
> > understand what of two things may be going on:
> >
> > (1) Is the fact that td_ksegrp != NULL an invariant for a connected
> > thread, and that kern_proc is relying on that but the thread code is
> > failing to implement it safely?
> >
> > (2) Is td_ksegrp sometimes left legitimately as NULL as part of the
> > thread life cycle, and that kern_proc incorrectly assumes that it is
> > never NULL when hooked up to a thread.
> >
> > This suggests a possible work-around of simply testing td_ksegrp for NULL
> > in kern_proc in order to avoid this, while attempting to resolve whether
> > an invariant is violated (or incorrectly assumed), which might require
> > some serious thinking and a solution that is non-trivial. Something like
> > the following might work in the mean time:
> >
> > Index: kern_proc.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/kern_proc.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.231
> > diff -u -r1.231 kern_proc.c
> > --- kern_proc.c 27 Sep 2005 18:03:15 -0000 1.231
> > +++ kern_proc.c 29 Sep 2005 20:50:33 -0000
> > @@ -882,6 +882,8 @@
> > } else {
> > _PHOLD(p);
> > FOREACH_THREAD_IN_PROC(p, td) {
> > + if (td->td_ksegrp == NULL)
> > + continue;
> > fill_kinfo_thread(td, &kinfo_proc);
> > PROC_UNLOCK(p);
> > error = SYSCTL_OUT(req, (caddr_t)&kinfo_proc,
> >
> > I'm going to forward off your e-mail to the threads@ list and see if
> > anyone there wants to talk some more about this. If you don't mind
> > testing the above patch to see if this is a workable work-around, we may
> > want to think about getting it committed in the mean time.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Robert N M Watson
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org