linux-kernel - Re: Locking Problem in 2.6.33-rc5

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:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:50:29 -0600
From:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Locking Problem in 2.6.33-rc5

On 01/26/2010 12:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On suspend to RAM, I get the following recursive locking message:
>>
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 2.6.33-rc5-Linus-dirty #173
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> sh/3488 is trying to acquire lock:
>>     (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81167413>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>>     (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8116771d>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x3d/0x60
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> 4 locks held by sh/3488:
>>     #0:  (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81165b7f>]
>> sysfs_write_file+0x3f/0x160
>>     #1:  (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8116771d>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x3d/0x60
>>     #2:  (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81167702>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x22/0x60
>>     #3:  (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81271517>]
>> cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xe7/0x480
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> Pid: 3488, comm: sh Not tainted 2.6.33-rc5-Linus-dirty #173
>> Call Trace:
>>     [<ffffffff8107c36b>] __lock_acquire+0xf6b/0x1d30
>>     [<ffffffff81078e9f>] ? lockdep_init_map+0x5f/0x5d0
>>     [<ffffffff8107d1cb>] lock_acquire+0x9b/0x120
>>     [<ffffffff81167413>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>>     [<ffffffff81166ba3>] sysfs_deactivate+0xc3/0x110
>>     [<ffffffff81167413>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>>     [<ffffffff81167413>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>>     [<ffffffff81165206>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x56/0x80
>>     [<ffffffff8116895f>] sysfs_remove_group+0x4f/0xf0
>>     [<ffffffff8127152b>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xfb/0x480
>>     [<ffffffff8107a8dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14d/0x190
>>     [<ffffffff8107a92d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>     [<ffffffff8126e314>] __cpufreq_governor+0x94/0x160
>>     [<ffffffff8126f84f>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x11f/0x180
>>     [<ffffffff8126fc66>] store_scaling_governor+0xc6/0x200
>>     [<ffffffff81270530>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x10
>>     [<ffffffff8126f702>] store+0x62/0x90
>>     [<ffffffff81165c21>] sysfs_write_file+0xe1/0x160
>>     [<ffffffff8110b0c8>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x180
>>     [<ffffffff8110b26c>] sys_write+0x4c/0x80
>>     [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> Does the patch at http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/70461/ fix it?

No, it does not. The traceback is identical except for the new kernel 
compilation number.

Larry


--
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/