Bug#1034728: linux-image-6.1.0-7-amd64: kernel WARNING in NFS server
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi Luarent,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 08:06:53PM +0200, Laurent Bonnaud wrote:
> Package: src:linux
> Version: 6.1.20-1
> Severity: normal
>
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> this system runs Debian 11 with the bookworm kernel. It is used as a NFS server for tens of clients.
>
> The kernel displayed this WARNING:
>
> [1051622.625888] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [1051622.625894] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 770 at fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:6354 nfs4_preprocess_stateid_op+0x5f9/0x610 [nfsd]
> [1051622.625989] Modules linked in: cts rpcsec_gss_krb5 ipmi_ssif quota_v2 quota_tree nls_ascii nls_cp437 vfat fat intel_rapl_msr intel_rapl_common intel_uncore_frequency intel_uncore_frequency_common isst_if_common skx_edac nfit libnvdimm x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp ghash_clmulni_intel sha512_ssse3 sha512_generic aesni_intel crypto_simd cryptd rapl intel_cstate dell_smbios dcdbas intel_uncore dell_wmi_descriptor wmi_bmof pcspkr efi_pstore iTCO_wdt intel_pmc_bxt iTCO_vendor_support mgag200 drm_shmem_helper sg drm_kms_helper mei_me watchdog i2c_algo_bit joydev acpi_ipmi mei intel_pch_thermal evdev ipmi_si ipmi_devintf ipmi_msghandler button nfsd nfs_acl auth_rpcgss lockd grace drm sunrpc configfs fuse efivarfs ip_tables x_tables autofs4 ext4 crc16 mbcache jbd2 crc32c_generic sd_mod t10_pi hid_generic crc64_rocksoft crc64 crc_t10dif crct10dif_generic usbhid hid ixgbe tg3 xfrm_algo dca mdio_devres crct10dif_pclmul crct10dif_common libphy crc32_pclmul crc32c_intel ahci libahci
> [1051622.626160] xhci_pci ptp lpc_ich megaraid_sas xhci_hcd i2c_i801 i2c_smbus libata pps_core mdio usbcore scsi_mod usb_common scsi_common wmi
> [1051622.626194] CPU: 0 PID: 770 Comm: nfsd Not tainted 6.1.0-7-amd64 #1 Debian 6.1.20-1
> [1051622.626204] Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R540/0NJK2F, BIOS 2.17.1 11/17/2022
> [1051622.626208] RIP: 0010:nfs4_preprocess_stateid_op+0x5f9/0x610 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626273] Code: 8b 5c 24 18 48 89 df e8 45 ba f2 f8 4c 89 f6 4c 89 e7 e8 3a 6f ff ff 48 89 df e8 12 bb f2 f8 41 b8 00 00 27 1b e9 a9 fa ff ff <0f> 0b e9 57 fd ff ff 45 31 c0 e9 4e fb ff ff e8 c3 8f f1 f8 0f 1f
> [1051622.626285] RSP: 0018:ffff9f4a0123fd80 EFLAGS: 00010246
> [1051622.626291] RAX: 0000000000000010 RBX: ffff8e3ae10144c0 RCX: ffff8e3f1caf78f0
> [1051622.626295] RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: ffff8e3f1caf79a0 RDI: 0000000000000000
> [1051622.626298] RBP: ffff8e3b20310000 R08: 0000000000000026 R09: ffff8e3afd2c7620
> [1051622.626301] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000004
> [1051622.626318] R13: 0000000000000004 R14: ffff8e3f1708f700 R15: 0000000000000000
> [1051622.626324] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8e4220000000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [1051622.626328] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [1051622.626332] CR2: 00007fe928010c48 CR3: 00000001203de006 CR4: 00000000007706f0
> [1051622.626342] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [1051622.626345] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [1051622.626348] PKRU: 55555554
> [1051622.626350] Call Trace:
> [1051622.626358] <TASK>
> [1051622.626367] nfsd4_read+0x95/0x120 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626426] nfsd4_proc_compound+0x352/0x660 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626495] nfsd_dispatch+0x167/0x280 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626543] svc_process_common+0x286/0x5e0 [sunrpc]
> [1051622.626637] ? svc_recv+0x4e1/0x890 [sunrpc]
> [1051622.626727] ? nfsd_svc+0x360/0x360 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626780] ? nfsd_shutdown_threads+0x90/0x90 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626832] svc_process+0xad/0x100 [sunrpc]
> [1051622.626915] nfsd+0xd5/0x190 [nfsd]
> [1051622.626963] kthread+0xe6/0x110
> [1051622.626972] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
> [1051622.626980] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [1051622.626993] </TASK>
> [1051622.626995] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
It look we did not reply to you back in 2023. Is this something you
still are able to reproduce?
If yes, then please do reopen this bug, remove the moreinfo tag and
please attach a fresh full boot log after having triggered the issue.
There is quite some development related to the backchannel code
upstream (which has not yet fully landed in 6.1.y series).
Regards,
Salvatore
Reply to: