linux-kernel - [PATCH] lockdep: annotate BLKPG_DEL

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1171622739.24923.64.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:45:39 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	arjan <arjan@...radead.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate BLKPG_DEL_PARTITION



>=============================================
>[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>2.6.19-1.2909.fc7 #1
>---------------------------------------------
>anaconda/587 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&bdev->bd_mutex){--..}, at: [<c05fb380>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>
>but task is already holding lock:
> (&bdev->bd_mutex){--..}, at: [<c05fb380>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>
>other info that might help us debug this:
>1 lock held by anaconda/587:
> #0:  (&bdev->bd_mutex){--..}, at: [<c05fb380>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>
>stack backtrace:
> [<c0405812>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
> [<c0405db2>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> [<c0405e36>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
> [<c043bd84>] __lock_acquire+0x116/0xa09
> [<c043c960>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f
> [<c05fb1fa>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xe5/0x24a
> [<c05fb380>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
> [<c04d82fb>] blkdev_ioctl+0x600/0x76d
> [<c04946b1>] block_ioctl+0x1b/0x1f
> [<c047ed5a>] do_ioctl+0x22/0x68
> [<c047eff2>] vfs_ioctl+0x252/0x265
> [<c047f04e>] sys_ioctl+0x49/0x63
> [<c0404070>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

Annotate BLKPG_DEL_PARTITION's bd_mutex locking and add a little comment
clarifying the bd_mutex locking, because I confused myself and initially
thought the lock order was wrong too.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
 block/ioctl.c  |    2 +-
 fs/block_dev.c |    7 +++++++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6.20.noarch/block/ioctl.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.20.noarch.orig/block/ioctl.c
+++ linux-2.6.20.noarch/block/ioctl.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int blkpg_ioctl(struct block_devi
 			fsync_bdev(bdevp);
 			invalidate_bdev(bdevp, 0);
 
-			mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
+			mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_mutex, 1);
 			delete_partition(disk, part);
 			mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
 			mutex_unlock(&bdevp->bd_mutex);
Index: linux-2.6.20.noarch/fs/block_dev.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.20.noarch.orig/fs/block_dev.c
+++ linux-2.6.20.noarch/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -1101,6 +1101,13 @@ static int __blkdev_get(struct block_dev
 			int for_part);
 static int __blkdev_put(struct block_device *bdev, int for_part);
 
+/*
+ * bd_mutex locking:
+ *
+ *  mutex_lock(part->bd_mutex)
+ *    mutex_lock_nested(whole->bd_mutex, 1)
+ */
+
 static int do_open(struct block_device *bdev, struct file *file, int for_part)
 {
 	struct module *owner = NULL;


-
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/