linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] While changing the cpufreq governor, kernel hits a bug in workqueue.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:55 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To:	Nageswara R Sastry <rnsastry@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	davej@...emonkey.org.uk
Subject: Re: [BUG] While changing the cpufreq governor, kernel hits a bug in workqueue.c

Hi,

Nageswara R Sastry <rnsastry@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Hi Johannes,
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>>> 2.6.25.7.cpufreq_patch #2
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
> [...]
>>> Okay, the problem is in cpufreq_conservative.c.  We
>>> cancel_delayed_work_sync() while holding the mutex, but the work itself
>>> tries to grab it and there it deadlocks; lockdep caught that right.
>>>
>>> The hunk for _ondemand is correct, but the one for _conservative is
>>> obviously wrong, sorry :/
>>>
>>> I will whip something up and get back to you.  Thanks a lot for
>>> testing!
>>
>> Could you try the attached patch instead of the one above?
>>
>> Dave, I dropped the mutex-grabbing from the conservative worker function
>> as well as I don't see a reason for it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> 	Hannes
>>
>
> The script is running now for more than 6 hours successfully, I will
> continue this and let you know if there are any failures.
>
> * I am seeing the circular locking dependency with the above patch
> too.

Uhm.  Failure or no failure?  A possible dead-lock report _is_ a
failure.  So, do you get one or not?  And if so, could you send me the
dmesg parts?

Thanks a lot,

	Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/