linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19-rc3-git7: scsi_device_unbusy: inconsistent lock state

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]

Message-ID: <20061030144315.GG4563@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:43:16 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
Cc:	IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3-git7: scsi_device_unbusy: inconsistent lock state

On Mon, Oct 30 2006, Mark Lord wrote:
> =================================
> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> 2.6.19-rc3-git7-ml #3
> ---------------------------------
> inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-W} usage.
> startproc/4046 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> (&q->__queue_lock){-+..}, at: [<c0219091>] cfq_set_request+0x351/0x3b0
> {in-softirq-W} state was registered at:
>  [<c01376b1>] mark_lock+0x81/0x5f0
>  [<c0138a90>] __lock_acquire+0x660/0xc10
>  [<c013939d>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x80
>  [<c0361c59>] _spin_lock+0x29/0x40
>  [<c029fa24>] scsi_device_unbusy+0x64/0x90
>  [<c029a5bc>] scsi_finish_command+0x1c/0xa0
>  [<c02115c2>] blk_done_softirq+0x62/0x70
>  [<c0122a27>] __do_softirq+0x87/0x100
>  [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60
>  [<c0122f3c>] ksoftirqd+0x7c/0xd0
>  [<c0130f76>] kthread+0xf6/0x100
>  [<c0103c6f>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x18
>  [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> irq event stamp: 3331
> hardirqs last  enabled at (3331): [<c016326d>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x6d/0xa0
> hardirqs last disabled at (3330): [<c016321f>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1f/0xa0
> softirqs last  enabled at (3012): [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60
> softirqs last disabled at (2971): [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60

Not sure what exactly is complained about here. The queue_lock must
always be grabbed with an irq disabling option, such as _irq or _irqsave
if potentially in interrupt context. I'm guessing it's the
scsi_device_unbusy() locking sequence that confuses it:

        spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
        ...
        spin_unlock(shost->host_lock);
        spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
        ...
        spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock, flags);

which has always been considered safe, while not very pretty.

Ingo?

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
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/