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: <1162225915.2948.49.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:31:55 +0100
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Mark Lord <liml@....ca>,
	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


> > 
> > 
> >  [<c0219091>] cfq_set_request+0x351/0x3b0
> >  [<c020c7fc>] elv_set_request+0x1c/0x40
> >  [<c020fcff>] get_request+0x23f/0x270
> >  [<c0210537>] get_request_wait+0x27/0x120
> >  [<c02107ca>] __make_request+0x5a/0x350
> >  [<c020f40f>] generic_make_request+0x16f/0x220
> >  [<c02117e4>] submit_bio+0x64/0x110
> > 
> > now cfq_set_request() uses several inlines which muddies the situation,
> > but lockdep claims one of them is not done correctly. (eg either it
> > takes the lock incorrectly or something does spin_unlock_irq while the
> > lock is held)
> 
> It's not really inlined trickery, the trace is exactly as printed.

what I meant is that cfq_set_request() calls a few inlines that also
take locks so it might be one of those instead

>  A few
> things may be allocated from that path, so we pass gfp_mask around. I'll
> double check it tonight, but I don't currently see what could be wrong.
> Would lockdep complain about:
> 
>         spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
>         ...
>         spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>         ...
>         spin_lock_irq(lock);
>         ...
>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);

this is fine for lockdep IF and only IF there is no "out lock" held
around this that requires irqs to be off. So if you do

spin_lock_irqsave(lock1, flags);
...
spin_lock_irqsave(lock2, flags);
spin_unlock_irq(lock2)
...

then lockdep WILL complain, and rightfully so, about a violation since
lock1 gets violated here ;)


-- 
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

-
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/