Re: netfilter: active obj WARN when cleaning up
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Date: 2013-12-19 12:12:52
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml, netfilter-devel
Subsystem:
the rest · Maintainer:
Linus Torvalds
On 12/17/13 20:53, Sasha Levin wrote:
I'm still seeing warnings with this patch applied: [ 24.900482] WARNING: CPU: 12 PID: 3654 at lib/debugobjects.c:260 debug_print_object+ 0x8d/0xb0() [ 24.900482] ODEBUG: free active (active state 0) object type: timer_list hint: delay ed_work_timer_fn+0x0/0x20 [ 24.900482] Modules linked in: [ 24.900482] CPU: 12 PID: 3654 Comm: kworker/12:1 Tainted: G W 3.13.0-rc4-n ext-20131217-sasha-00013-ga878504-dirty #4149 [ 24.900482] Workqueue: events kobject_delayed_cleanup [ 24.900482] 0000000000000104 ffff8804f429bae8 ffffffff8439501c ffffffff8555a92c [ 24.900482] ffff8804f429bb38 ffff8804f429bb28 ffffffff8112f8ac ffff8804f429bb58 [ 24.900482] ffffffff856a9413 ffff880826333530 ffffffff85c68c40 ffffffff8801bb58 [ 24.900482] Call Trace: [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8439501c>] dump_stack+0x52/0x7f [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8112f8ac>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8c/0xc0 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8112f996>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81adb50d>] debug_print_object+0x8d/0xb0 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81153090>] ? __queue_work+0x3f0/0x3f0 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81adbd15>] __debug_check_no_obj_freed+0xa5/0x220 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff832b1acb>] ? rtc_device_release+0x2b/0x40 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff832b1acb>] ? rtc_device_release+0x2b/0x40 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81adbea5>] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x15/0x20 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff812ad54f>] kfree+0x21f/0x2e0 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff832b1acb>] rtc_device_release+0x2b/0x40 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8207efd5>] device_release+0x65/0xc0 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81ab05e5>] kobject_cleanup+0x145/0x190 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81ab063d>] kobject_delayed_cleanup+0xd/0x10 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81153a60>] process_one_work+0x320/0x530 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81153940>] ? process_one_work+0x200/0x530 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81155fe5>] worker_thread+0x215/0x350 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff81155dd0>] ? manage_workers+0x180/0x180 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8115c9c5>] kthread+0x105/0x110 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8115c8c0>] ? set_kthreadd_affinity+0x30/0x30 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff843a5e7c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 24.900482] [<ffffffff8115c8c0>] ? set_kthreadd_affinity+0x30/0x30 [ 24.900482] ---[ end trace 45529ebf79b2573e ]---
Can anyone tell me whether the patch below makes sense ? Please note that I'm not familiar with the timer subsystem.
diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index accfd24..828b666 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c@@ -969,6 +969,8 @@ int del_timer(struct timer_list *timer) base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags); ret = detach_if_pending(timer, base, true); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags); + } else { + debug_deactivate(timer); } return ret; --
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>