On 7/21/07, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:50:47 -0700
> Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 06:32:21PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > This looks like a sysfs bug
> > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/
> > > broken-out-2007-07-20-00-22/00003.jpg
> > >
> > > l *kernel_param_sysfs_setup+0x75
> > > 0xc13c0894 is in kernel_param_sysfs_setup (kernel/params.c:570).
> > > 565 mk->mod = THIS_MODULE;
> > > 566 kobj_set_kset_s(mk, module_subsys);
> > > 567 kobject_set_name(&mk->kobj, name);
> > > 568 kobject_init(&mk->kobj);
> > > 569 ret = kobject_add(&mk->kobj);
> > > 570 BUG_ON(ret < 0);
> > > 571 param_sysfs_setup(mk, kparam, num_params, name_skip);
> > > 572 kobject_uevent(&mk->kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
> > > 573 }
> > > 574
> > >
> > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/broken-out-2007-07-20-00-22/mm-config
> >
> > What kernel version is this happening on? The -mm tree? Can you try
> > Linus's tree instead?
> >
> > It looks like there was some needed information right before the first
> > stack dump, showing exactly what kobject was trying to be added that was
> > already present. Odds are this is a kernel parameter with the same name
> > as a duplicate one within the same module,
I don't think that's an -EEXIST.
I think what we have here is kobject_add() exiting with -EINVAL.
(kobject attempted to be registered with no name!)
[ The first trace on that screen shows: kobject_shadow_add+0x5b/0x189.
That's the WARN_ON(1) at lib/kobject.c:176. If it was a EEXIST case,
we would've seen an offset in kobject_shadow_add closer to 0x189,
because the dump_stack() for EEXIST is barely 4 instructions before
we return from that function. ]
> > but the trick is going to be
> > trying to figure out what module is causing this.
So I'd guess we want to search for a module that's passing a kobject *
to kobject_add() such that !kobj->k_name is true.
> > So it's not a sysfs bug, but rather a driver issue that this is
> > catching.
>
> In that case a BUG was way too harsh treatment, and in fact directly
> contributed to our inability to debug the bug!
>
> Can we wind that back a bit? Add some useful printks and then recover
> in some fashion?
[...]
So I'm guessing he was trying to catch something specific here.
Considering that:
(1) This isn't a bug that should bring down the kernel that hard, and,
(2) kobject_shadow_add() seems to be dumping enough stacks and
printing printk's on errors already,
I'd suggest to just get rid of the BUG_ON() in kernel_param_sysfs_setup()
Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
