[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071124075519.GA9118@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:55:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [bug] xfrm_state_lock: possible circular locking dependency
detected
* Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 04:38:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > DaveJ's Fedora 8 rpm for 2.6.24 works petty well, except for the
> > neworking related lockdep assert attached below, which happened while
> > starting up ipsec. Let me know if you need any more info - it's a pretty
> > stock setup.
>
> Thanks for the report Ingo!
>
> This is indeed a regression caused by:
>
> commit 050f009e16f908932070313c1745d09dc69fd62b
> Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Date: Tue Oct 9 13:31:47 2007 -0700
>
> [IPSEC]: Lock state when copying non-atomic fields to user-space
>
> For 2.6.24 I'm simply going to revert this change since that just puts
> us back to the same state we've been for the last few years.
>
> For 2.6.25 I'll do a proper fix by making sure that every xfrm state
> user obeys the rule that if x->lock is to be taken with
> xfrm_state_lock then it must be done from within.
ok, great. I cannot test the revert because i only run distro kernels on
this box so i can only confirm that the bug is gone once your revert is
upstream and DaveJ has built a new Fedora kernel for it (which is 1-2
days after the commit goes upstream). So consider it fixed once you do
the revert and i'll re-report it if i see any similar assert on a kernel
that has this commit reverted.
Ingo
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists