Tyrel Datwyler <tyr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On 09/20/2017 04:39 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> writes:
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:04 AM, abdul <abdha...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mainline kernel panics during DLPAR CPU add/remove operation.
>>>>
>>>> Machine Type: Power8 PowerVM LPAR
>>>> kernel 4.13.0
>>>
>>> Did 4.12 work or when was it last working? I'm not seeing anything
>>> recent in the DT code that looks suspicious.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it's:
>>
>> int dlpar_attach_node(struct device_node *dn, struct device_node *parent)
>> {
>> int rc;
>>
>> dn->parent = parent;
>>
>> rc = of_attach_node(dn);
>> if (rc) {
>> printk(KERN_ERR "Failed to add device node %pOF\n", dn);
>> return rc;
>> }
>>
>> of_node_put(dn->parent);
>> HERE ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> Prior to 215ee763f8cb ("powerpc: pseries: remove dlpar_attach_node
>> dependency on full path"), we re-looked up the parent, and got another
>> reference on it. That meant the put before the return there was correct.
>> But now it's not because the caller has a reference to parent but it's
>> not ours to drop.
>>
>> Testing a fix, will report back.
>
> So, that patch slipped past me. Not only is the parent reference not ours to
> drop, but
> when I went and looked at dlpar_cpu_add() I also noticed that of_node_put()
> was done on
> the parent prior to the call to dlpar_attach_node(). With the addition of
> "parent" to the
> dlpar_attach_node() parameter list dlpar_cpu_add() needs to be fixed up to
> hold the
> "parent" reference until after dlpar_attach_node() returns.
Yep. I wrote the same patch :)
Rob asked me to test it, which I did, but /cpus starts out with an
elevated ref count, so you have to do ~30 (on my system) DLPAR removes
to hit the bug, which I didn't do.
I've updated my test script to do roughly $(nproc) x 10 DLPAR removes,
which is hopefully sufficient to catch these bugs in future.
cheers
