Re: Fw: List corruption and crash with kernel 3.1

Re: Fw: List corruption and crash with kernel 3.1

[Anton Vorontsov]

Resend, add proper Cc's.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16:08AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > erk, help, who do I blame for this?
> 
> [...]
> 
> > WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:47 __list_del_entry+0x8d/0x98()
> > Hardware name: Latitude E4200
> > list_del corruption, ffff880075e147b0->next is LIST_POISON1 (dead000000100100)
> [...]
> >  [<ffffffff81243861>] __list_del_entry+0x8d/0x98
> >  [<ffffffff8124387a>] list_del+0xe/0x2d
> >  [<ffffffff813a7e55>] led_trigger_unregister+0x29/0x9c
> >  [<ffffffff813a7ee1>] led_trigger_unregister_simple+0x19/0x26
> >  [<ffffffff813828e2>] power_supply_remove_triggers+0x21/0x8f
> >  [<ffffffff81381d42>] power_supply_unregister+0x1f/0x2c
> >  [<ffffffff812a7d1f>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x3c/0x54
> >  [<ffffffff812a8c4d>] acpi_battery_notify+0x46/0xaa
> 
> As far as I know (and can see from the changelogs), the LED trigger
> registration code hasn't changed in a long time.
> led_trigger_unregister_simple() and led_trigger_unregister() are
> relatively simple functions and looking at the latter, the list_del
> causing this is fairly clear.
> 
> What puzzles me is that led_trigger_unregister_simple() wouldn't call
> led_trigger_unregister() twice for the same trigger as it frees the
> memory.
> 
> However, if that function were called multiple times in parallel with
> the same trigger, I can imagine it racing.
> 
> My thought is therefore is something in the power_supply* code calling
> this function multiple times and a race?

I wonder if that patch helps:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/12/242

The traces are pretty similar.

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com

Re: Fw: List corruption and crash with kernel 3.1

[Éric Brunet]

Le jeudi 13 octobre 2011 17:50:02, Anton Vorontsov a écrit :
> Resend, add proper Cc's.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:16:08AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > erk, help, who do I blame for this?
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:47 __list_del_entry+0x8d/0x98()
> 
> I wonder if that patch helps:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/12/242
> 
> The traces are pretty similar.

Hi,

Sorry it took some time. I tried the patch with 2.6.39, it does not seem to 
help as I still observe the crash. I was not gifted with a warning in the 
logs, though.

(I used 2.6.39 because it's a kernel with a quite high rate of bugging on 
suspend/resume. I had to apply manually one of the chunks of the patch.)

Is there a debugging option which would help having more info on the log ?

Thanks,

	Éric Brunet