Filesystem corruption on fresh installation #178
Comments
|
3 times on the same card? |
|
Yes, same SD card. |
|
Try with another card?! |
|
It seems the problem was with the SD card. |
kamalmostafa
pushed a commit
to kamalmostafa/raspberrypi-linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 3, 2013
commit 6ff1f3d upstream. On AM3517, tx and rx interrupt are detected together with the disconnect event. This generates a kernel panic in musb_interrupt, because rx / tx are handled after disconnect. This issue was seen on a Technexion's TAM3517 SOM. Unplugging a device, tx / rx interrupts together with disconnect are detected. This brings to kernel panic like this: [ 68.526153] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000011 [ 68.534698] pgd = c0004000 [ 68.537536] [00000011] *pgd=00000000 [ 68.541351] Internal error: Oops: 17 [raspberrypi#1] ARM [ 68.545928] Modules linked in: [ 68.549163] CPU: 0 Not tainted (3.6.0-rc5-00020-g9e05905 raspberrypi#178) [ 68.555694] PC is at rxstate+0x8/0xdc [ 68.559539] LR is at musb_interrupt+0x98/0x858 [ 68.564239] pc : [<c035cd88>] lr : [<c035af1c>] psr: 40000193 [ 68.564239] sp : ce83fb40 ip : d0906410 fp : 00000000 [ 68.576293] r10: 00000000 r9 : cf3b0e40 r8 : 00000002 [ 68.581817] r7 : 00000019 r6 : 00000001 r5 : 00000001 r4 : 000000d4 [ 68.588684] r3 : 00000000 r2 : 00000000 r1 : ffffffcc r0 : cf23c108 [ 68.595550] Flags: nZcv IRQs off FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment ke Note: this behavior is not seen with a USB hub, while it is easy to reproduce connecting a USB-pen directly to the USB-A of the board. Drop tx / rx interrupts if disconnect is detected. Signed-off-by: Stefano Babic <[email protected]> CC: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> Tested-by: Dmitry Lifshitz <[email protected]> Tested-by: Igor Grinberg <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
hoerman
pushed a commit
to hoerman/linux.rpi
that referenced
this issue
Feb 20, 2013
On AM3517, tx and rx interrupt are detected together with the disconnect event. This generates a kernel panic in musb_interrupt, because rx / tx are handled after disconnect. This issue was seen on a Technexion's TAM3517 SOM. Unplugging a device, tx / rx interrupts together with disconnect are detected. This brings to kernel panic like this: [ 68.526153] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000011 [ 68.534698] pgd = c0004000 [ 68.537536] [00000011] *pgd=00000000 [ 68.541351] Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] ARM [ 68.545928] Modules linked in: [ 68.549163] CPU: 0 Not tainted (3.6.0-rc5-00020-g9e05905 raspberrypi#178) [ 68.555694] PC is at rxstate+0x8/0xdc [ 68.559539] LR is at musb_interrupt+0x98/0x858 [ 68.564239] pc : [<c035cd88>] lr : [<c035af1c>] psr: 40000193 [ 68.564239] sp : ce83fb40 ip : d0906410 fp : 00000000 [ 68.576293] r10: 00000000 r9 : cf3b0e40 r8 : 00000002 [ 68.581817] r7 : 00000019 r6 : 00000001 r5 : 00000001 r4 : 000000d4 [ 68.588684] r3 : 00000000 r2 : 00000000 r1 : ffffffcc r0 : cf23c108 [ 68.595550] Flags: nZcv IRQs off FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment ke Note: this behavior is not seen with a USB hub, while it is easy to reproduce connecting a USB-pen directly to the USB-A of the board. Drop tx / rx interrupts if disconnect is detected. Signed-off-by: Stefano Babic <[email protected]> CC: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] # 3.5 3.6 Tested-by: Dmitry Lifshitz <[email protected]> Tested-by: Igor Grinberg <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
popcornmix
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 8, 2014
No need for rht_dereference() from rhashtable_destroy() since the existing callers don't hold the mutex when invoking this function from: 1) Netlink, this is called in case of memory allocation errors in the initialization path, no nl_sk_hash_lock is held. 2) Netfilter, this is called from the rcu callback, no nfnl_lock is held either. I think it's reasonable to assume that the caller has to make sure that no hash resizing may happen before releasing the bucket array. Therefore, the caller should be responsible for releasing this in a safe way, document this to make people aware of it. This resolves a rcu lockdep splat in nft_hash: =============================== [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] 3.16.0+ #178 Not tainted ------------------------------- lib/rhashtable.c:596 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage! other info that might help us debug this: rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 1 lock held by ksoftirqd/2/18: #0: (rcu_callback){......}, at: [<ffffffff810918fd>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x27e/0x4c7 stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 18 Comm: ksoftirqd/2 Not tainted 3.16.0+ #178 Hardware name: LENOVO 23259H1/23259H1, BIOS G2ET32WW (1.12 ) 05/30/2012 0000000000000001 ffff88011706bb68 ffffffff8143debc 0000000000000000 ffff880117062610 ffff88011706bb98 ffffffff81077515 ffff8800ca041a50 0000000000000004 ffff8800ca386480 ffff8800ca041a00 ffff88011706bbb8 Call Trace: [<ffffffff8143debc>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x68 [<ffffffff81077515>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xfa/0x103 [<ffffffff81228b1b>] rhashtable_destroy+0x46/0x52 [<ffffffffa06f21a7>] nft_hash_destroy+0x73/0x82 [nft_hash] Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <[email protected]> Acked-by: Thomas Graf <[email protected]>
popcornmix
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 19, 2021
[ Upstream commit 0f20615 ] Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
popcornmix
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 19, 2021
[ Upstream commit 0f20615 ] Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
popcornmix
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 19, 2021
[ Upstream commit 0f20615 ] Fix BPF_CORE_READ_BITFIELD() macro used for reading CO-RE-relocatable bitfields. Missing breaks in a switch caused 8-byte reads always. This can confuse libbpf because it does strict checks that memory load size corresponds to the original size of the field, which in this case quite often would be wrong. After fixing that, we run into another problem, which quite subtle, so worth documenting here. The issue is in Clang optimization and CO-RE relocation interactions. Without that asm volatile construct (also known as barrier_var()), Clang will re-order BYTE_OFFSET and BYTE_SIZE relocations and will apply BYTE_OFFSET 4 times for each switch case arm. This will result in the same error from libbpf about mismatch of memory load size and original field size. I.e., if we were reading u32, we'd still have *(u8 *), *(u16 *), *(u32 *), and *(u64 *) memory loads, three of which will fail. Using barrier_var() forces Clang to apply BYTE_OFFSET relocation first (and once) to calculate p, after which value of p is used without relocation in each of switch case arms, doing appropiately-sized memory load. Here's the list of relevant relocations and pieces of generated BPF code before and after this patch for test_core_reloc_bitfields_direct selftests. BEFORE ===== #45: core_reloc: insn #160 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #46: core_reloc: insn #167 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #47: core_reloc: insn #174 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #48: core_reloc: insn #178 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #49: core_reloc: insn #182 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 157: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 159: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 160: b7 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 r2 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 161: 66 02 07 00 03 00 00 00 if w2 s> 3 goto +7 <LBB0_63> 162: 16 02 0d 00 01 00 00 00 if w2 == 1 goto +13 <LBB0_65> 163: 16 02 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w2 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 164: 05 00 12 00 00 00 00 00 goto +18 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000528 <LBB0_66>: 165: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 167: 69 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 168: 05 00 0e 00 00 00 00 00 goto +14 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000548 <LBB0_63>: 169: 16 02 0a 00 04 00 00 00 if w2 == 4 goto +10 <LBB0_67> 170: 16 02 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w2 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 171: 05 00 0b 00 00 00 00 00 goto +11 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000560 <LBB0_68>: 172: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 174: 79 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 175: 05 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 goto +7 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000580 <LBB0_65>: 176: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 178: 71 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ WRONG size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 179: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 00000000000005a0 <LBB0_67>: 180: 18 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = 0 ll 182: 61 11 08 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r1 + 8) ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here w/ RIGHT size ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000005b8 <LBB0_69>: 183: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 184: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 185: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 186: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 187: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000005e0 <LBB0_71>: 188: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 32 AFTER ===== #30: core_reloc: insn #132 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_off --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 #31: core_reloc: insn #134 --> [5] + 0:5: byte_sz --> struct core_reloc_bitfields.u32 129: 18 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 ll 131: 7b 12 20 01 00 00 00 00 *(u64 *)(r2 + 288) = r1 132: b7 01 00 00 08 00 00 00 r1 = 8 ; BYTE_OFFSET relo here ^^^ ; no size check for non-memory dereferencing instructions 133: 0f 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 += r1 134: b7 03 00 00 04 00 00 00 r3 = 4 ; BYTE_SIZE relocation here ^^^ 135: 66 03 05 00 03 00 00 00 if w3 s> 3 goto +5 <LBB0_63> 136: 16 03 09 00 01 00 00 00 if w3 == 1 goto +9 <LBB0_65> 137: 16 03 01 00 02 00 00 00 if w3 == 2 goto +1 <LBB0_66> 138: 05 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 goto +10 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000458 <LBB0_66>: 139: 69 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u16 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 140: 05 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 goto +8 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000468 <LBB0_63>: 141: 16 03 06 00 04 00 00 00 if w3 == 4 goto +6 <LBB0_67> 142: 16 03 01 00 08 00 00 00 if w3 == 8 goto +1 <LBB0_68> 143: 05 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 goto +5 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000480 <LBB0_68>: 144: 79 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u64 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 145: 05 00 03 00 00 00 00 00 goto +3 <LBB0_69> 0000000000000490 <LBB0_65>: 146: 71 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u8 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 147: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_69> 00000000000004a0 <LBB0_67>: 148: 61 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 r1 = *(u32 *)(r2 + 0) ; NO CO-RE relocation here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 00000000000004a8 <LBB0_69>: 149: 67 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 <<= 32 150: b7 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 r2 = 0 151: 16 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 if w2 == 0 goto +2 <LBB0_71> 152: c7 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 s>>= 32 153: 05 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 goto +1 <LBB0_72> 00000000000004d0 <LBB0_71>: 154: 77 01 00 00 20 00 00 00 r1 >>= 323 Fixes: ee26dad ("libbpf: Add support for relocatable bitfields") Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> Acked-by: Lorenz Bauer <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
This is the third time this happened to a (completely) new installation. Some data:
sudo restart. No unclean shutdowns, no other shutdowns at all.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: