Open
Conversation
this is the fix Dggrr on xda found for the following error he (and now I) experienced when building LineageOS 14.1.
```In file included from external/ebtables/extensions/ebt_pkttype.c:15:
out/target/product/grouper/obj/KERNEL_OBJ/usr/include/linux/if_packet.h:176:2: error: unknown type name 'aligned_u64'
aligned_u64 seq_num;```
This fixed the build for him, and mine's running fine so far, but I have no idea if this is an error any AOSP builders are facing, and thus whether it should be included here.
millosr
pushed a commit
to millosr/android_kernel_asus_grouper
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2018
An inactive timer's base can refer to a offline cpu's base. In the current code, cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period that another thread is trying to modify an inactive timer on that CPU with holding its timer base lock, then the lock will be reinitialized under its feet. This leads to following SPIN_BUG(). <0> BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#3, kworker/u:3/1466 <0> lock: 0xe3ebe000, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kworker/u:3/1466, .owner_cpu: 1 <4> [<c0013dc4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x11c) from [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) <4> [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) from [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) <4> [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) <4> [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) from [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) <4> [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) from [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) <4> [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) from [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) <4> [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) from [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) <4> [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) from [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) <4> [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) from [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) <4> [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) from [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) <4> [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) from [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) <4> [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) from [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) <4> [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) from [<c000ea80>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8) As an example, this particular crash occurred when CPU AndDiSa#3 is executing mod_timer() on an inactive timer whose base is refered to offlined CPU AndDiSa#2. The code locked the timer_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#2. Before it could proceed, CPU AndDiSa#2 came online and reinitialized the spinlock corresponding to its base. Thus now CPU AndDiSa#3 held a lock which was reinitialized. When CPU AndDiSa#3 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#2, we hit the above SPIN_BUG(). CPU #0 CPU AndDiSa#3 CPU AndDiSa#2 ------ ------- ------- ..... ...... <Offline> mod_timer() lock_timer_base spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock) cpu_up(2) ..... ...... init_timers_cpu() .... ..... spin_lock_init(&base->lock) ..... spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock) ...... <spin_bug> Allocation of per_cpu timer vector bases is done only once under "tvec_base_done[]" check. In the current code, spinlock_initialization of base->lock isn't under this check. When a CPU is up each time the base lock is reinitialized. Move base spinlock initialization under the check. Signed-off-by: Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@codeaurora.org> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1368520142-4136-1-git-send-email-tirupath@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
millosr
pushed a commit
to millosr/android_kernel_asus_grouper
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2018
commit 84cc8fd upstream. The current code makes the assumption that a cpu_base lock won't be held if the CPU corresponding to that cpu_base is offline, which isn't always true. If a hrtimer is not queued, then it will not be migrated by migrate_hrtimers() when a CPU is offlined. Therefore, the hrtimer's cpu_base may still point to a CPU which has subsequently gone offline if the timer wasn't enqueued at the time the CPU went down. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but a cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period that another thread is performing a hrtimer operation on a stale hrtimer, then the lock will be reinitialized under its feet, and a SPIN_BUG() like the following will be observed: <0>[ 28.082085] BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#0, swapper/0/0 <0>[ 28.087078] lock: 0xc4780b40, value 0x0 .magic: dead4ead, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: -1 <4>[ 42.451150] [<c0014398>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x120) from [<c0269220>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0xdc) <4>[ 42.460430] [<c0269220>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0xdc) from [<c071b5bc>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) <4>[ 42.469632] [<c071b5bc>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c00a9ce0>] (__hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1e4/0x4f8) <4>[ 42.479521] [<c00a9ce0>] (__hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1e4/0x4f8) from [<c00aa014>] (hrtimer_start+0x20/0x28) <4>[ 42.489247] [<c00aa014>] (hrtimer_start+0x20/0x28) from [<c00e6190>] (rcu_idle_enter_common+0x1ac/0x320) <4>[ 42.498709] [<c00e6190>] (rcu_idle_enter_common+0x1ac/0x320) from [<c00e6440>] (rcu_idle_enter+0xa0/0xb8) <4>[ 42.508259] [<c00e6440>] (rcu_idle_enter+0xa0/0xb8) from [<c000f268>] (cpu_idle+0x24/0xf0) <4>[ 42.516503] [<c000f268>] (cpu_idle+0x24/0xf0) from [<c06ed3c0>] (rest_init+0x88/0xa0) <4>[ 42.524319] [<c06ed3c0>] (rest_init+0x88/0xa0) from [<c0c00978>] (start_kernel+0x3d0/0x434) As an example, this particular crash occurred when hrtimer_start() was executed on CPU #0. The code locked the hrtimer's current cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#1. CPU #0 then tried to switch the hrtimer's cpu_base to an optimal CPU which was online. In this case, it selected the cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#3. Before it could proceed, CPU AndDiSa#1 came online and reinitialized the spinlock corresponding to its cpu_base. Thus now CPU #0 held a lock which was reinitialized. When CPU #0 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#1 so that it could switch to CPU AndDiSa#3, we hit this SPIN_BUG() above while in switch_hrtimer_base(). CPU #0 CPU AndDiSa#1 ---- ---- ... <offline> hrtimer_start() lock_hrtimer_base(base AndDiSa#1) ... init_hrtimers_cpu() switch_hrtimer_base() ... ... raw_spin_lock_init(&cpu_base->lock) raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock) ... <spin_bug> Solve this by statically initializing the lock. Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1363745965-23475-1-git-send-email-mbohan@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
millosr
pushed a commit
to millosr/android_kernel_asus_grouper
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2018
An inactive timer's base can refer to a offline cpu's base. In the current code, cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period that another thread is trying to modify an inactive timer on that CPU with holding its timer base lock, then the lock will be reinitialized under its feet. This leads to following SPIN_BUG(). <0> BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#3, kworker/u:3/1466 <0> lock: 0xe3ebe000, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kworker/u:3/1466, .owner_cpu: 1 <4> [<c0013dc4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x11c) from [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) <4> [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) from [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) <4> [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) <4> [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) from [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) <4> [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) from [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) <4> [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) from [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) <4> [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) from [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) <4> [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) from [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) <4> [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) from [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) <4> [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) from [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) <4> [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) from [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) <4> [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) from [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) <4> [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) from [<c000ea80>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8) As an example, this particular crash occurred when CPU AndDiSa#3 is executing mod_timer() on an inactive timer whose base is refered to offlined CPU AndDiSa#2. The code locked the timer_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#2. Before it could proceed, CPU AndDiSa#2 came online and reinitialized the spinlock corresponding to its base. Thus now CPU AndDiSa#3 held a lock which was reinitialized. When CPU AndDiSa#3 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#2, we hit the above SPIN_BUG(). CPU #0 CPU AndDiSa#3 CPU AndDiSa#2 ------ ------- ------- ..... ...... <Offline> mod_timer() lock_timer_base spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock) cpu_up(2) ..... ...... init_timers_cpu() .... ..... spin_lock_init(&base->lock) ..... spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock) ...... <spin_bug> Allocation of per_cpu timer vector bases is done only once under "tvec_base_done[]" check. In the current code, spinlock_initialization of base->lock isn't under this check. When a CPU is up each time the base lock is reinitialized. Move base spinlock initialization under the check. Signed-off-by: Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@codeaurora.org> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1368520142-4136-1-git-send-email-tirupath@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
millosr
pushed a commit
to millosr/android_kernel_asus_grouper
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2018
commit 84cc8fd upstream. The current code makes the assumption that a cpu_base lock won't be held if the CPU corresponding to that cpu_base is offline, which isn't always true. If a hrtimer is not queued, then it will not be migrated by migrate_hrtimers() when a CPU is offlined. Therefore, the hrtimer's cpu_base may still point to a CPU which has subsequently gone offline if the timer wasn't enqueued at the time the CPU went down. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but a cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period that another thread is performing a hrtimer operation on a stale hrtimer, then the lock will be reinitialized under its feet, and a SPIN_BUG() like the following will be observed: <0>[ 28.082085] BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#0, swapper/0/0 <0>[ 28.087078] lock: 0xc4780b40, value 0x0 .magic: dead4ead, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: -1 <4>[ 42.451150] [<c0014398>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x120) from [<c0269220>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0xdc) <4>[ 42.460430] [<c0269220>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0xdc) from [<c071b5bc>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) <4>[ 42.469632] [<c071b5bc>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c00a9ce0>] (__hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1e4/0x4f8) <4>[ 42.479521] [<c00a9ce0>] (__hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1e4/0x4f8) from [<c00aa014>] (hrtimer_start+0x20/0x28) <4>[ 42.489247] [<c00aa014>] (hrtimer_start+0x20/0x28) from [<c00e6190>] (rcu_idle_enter_common+0x1ac/0x320) <4>[ 42.498709] [<c00e6190>] (rcu_idle_enter_common+0x1ac/0x320) from [<c00e6440>] (rcu_idle_enter+0xa0/0xb8) <4>[ 42.508259] [<c00e6440>] (rcu_idle_enter+0xa0/0xb8) from [<c000f268>] (cpu_idle+0x24/0xf0) <4>[ 42.516503] [<c000f268>] (cpu_idle+0x24/0xf0) from [<c06ed3c0>] (rest_init+0x88/0xa0) <4>[ 42.524319] [<c06ed3c0>] (rest_init+0x88/0xa0) from [<c0c00978>] (start_kernel+0x3d0/0x434) As an example, this particular crash occurred when hrtimer_start() was executed on CPU #0. The code locked the hrtimer's current cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#1. CPU #0 then tried to switch the hrtimer's cpu_base to an optimal CPU which was online. In this case, it selected the cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#3. Before it could proceed, CPU AndDiSa#1 came online and reinitialized the spinlock corresponding to its cpu_base. Thus now CPU #0 held a lock which was reinitialized. When CPU #0 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base corresponding to CPU AndDiSa#1 so that it could switch to CPU AndDiSa#3, we hit this SPIN_BUG() above while in switch_hrtimer_base(). CPU #0 CPU AndDiSa#1 ---- ---- ... <offline> hrtimer_start() lock_hrtimer_base(base AndDiSa#1) ... init_hrtimers_cpu() switch_hrtimer_base() ... ... raw_spin_lock_init(&cpu_base->lock) raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock) ... <spin_bug> Solve this by statically initializing the lock. Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1363745965-23475-1-git-send-email-mbohan@codeaurora.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
surblazer
pushed a commit
to surblazer/android_kernel_asus_grouper
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2020
Sharvil noticed with the posix timer_settime interface, using the CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM or CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM clockid, if the users tried to specify a relative time timer, it would incorrectly be treated as absolute regardless of the state of the flags argument. This patch corrects this, properly checking the absolute/relative flag, as well as adds further error checking that no invalid flag bits are set. Reported-by: Sharvil Nanavati <sharvil@google.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> Cc: Sharvil Nanavati <sharvil@google.com> Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org> AndDiSa#3.0+ Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1404767171-6902-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
this is the fix Dggrr on xda found for the following error he (and now I) experienced when building LineageOS 14.1.
This fixed the build for him and me, but I have no idea if this is an error any AOSP builders are facing, and if this would have unintended consequences for AOSP builds.