-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
drop_nlink() warning #632
Milestone
Comments
also hit cifs, the fix there: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/31/2 |
Great, thanks for the reference. We can probably close this one out now as not a zfs bug. The above stack was also for cifs. |
behlendorf
pushed a commit
to behlendorf/zfs
that referenced
this issue
May 21, 2018
It is just plain unsafe to peek inside in-kernel mutex structure and make assumptions about what kernel does with those internal fields like owner. Kernel is all too happy to stop doing the expected things like tracing lock owner once you load a tainted module like spl/zfs that is not GPL. As such you will get instant assertion failures like this: VERIFY3(((*(volatile typeof((&((&zo->zo_lock)->m_mutex))->owner) *)& ((&((&zo->zo_lock)->m_mutex))->owner))) == ((void *)0)) failed (ffff88030be28500 == (null)) PANIC at zfs_onexit.c:104:zfs_onexit_destroy() Showing stack for process 3626 CPU: 0 PID: 3626 Comm: mkfs.lustre Tainted: P OE ------------ 3.10.0-debug #1 Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x19/0x1b spl_dumpstack+0x44/0x50 [spl] spl_panic+0xbf/0xf0 [spl] zfs_onexit_destroy+0x17c/0x280 [zfs] zfsdev_release+0x48/0xd0 [zfs] Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Chunwei Chen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <[email protected]> Closes openzfs#632 Closes openzfs#633
behlendorf
pushed a commit
to behlendorf/zfs
that referenced
this issue
May 21, 2018
It is just plain unsafe to peek inside in-kernel mutex structure and make assumptions about what kernel does with those internal fields like owner. Kernel is all too happy to stop doing the expected things like tracing lock owner once you load a tainted module like spl/zfs that is not GPL. As such you will get instant assertion failures like this: VERIFY3(((*(volatile typeof((&((&zo->zo_lock)->m_mutex))->owner) *)& ((&((&zo->zo_lock)->m_mutex))->owner))) == ((void *)0)) failed (ffff88030be28500 == (null)) PANIC at zfs_onexit.c:104:zfs_onexit_destroy() Showing stack for process 3626 CPU: 0 PID: 3626 Comm: mkfs.lustre Tainted: P OE ------------ 3.10.0-debug #1 Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x19/0x1b spl_dumpstack+0x44/0x50 [spl] spl_panic+0xbf/0xf0 [spl] zfs_onexit_destroy+0x17c/0x280 [zfs] zfsdev_release+0x48/0xd0 [zfs] Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Chunwei Chen <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Gvozden Neskovic <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <[email protected]> Closes openzfs#639 Closes openzfs#632
pcd1193182
pushed a commit
to pcd1193182/zfs
that referenced
this issue
Sep 26, 2023
DLPX-83164 zfs hangs when trying to unmount/teardown filesystem
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Had the following present itself in my kernel logs. Running most
recent zfs/spl rc revision on linux kernel 3.3.0
[409255.817689] WARNING: at fs/inode.c:290 drop_nlink+0x38/0x40()
[409255.817691] Hardware name:
[409255.817693] Modules linked in: zfs(PO) zcommon(PO) znvpair(PO)
zavl(PO) zunicode(PO) spl(O) mpt2sas
[409255.817703] Pid: 10801, comm: rsync Tainted: P O 3.3.0-gentoo #1
[409255.817705] Call Trace:
[409255.817713] [] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x7b/0xc0
[409255.817717] [] ? drop_nlink+0x38/0x40
[409255.817722] [] ? cifs_unlink+0x1fa/0x820
[409255.817727] [] ? handle_pte_fault+0x8a/0x790
[409255.817730] [] ? __d_lookup+0xa3/0x150
[409255.817735] [] ? vfs_unlink+0x8d/0xf0
[409255.817739] [] ? do_unlinkat+0x1a1/0x1d0
[409255.817743] [] ? dput+0x1e/0x190
[409255.817748] [] ? fput+0x162/0x220
[409255.817752] [] ? mntput_no_expire+0x2f/0x180
[409255.817758] [] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: