[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47B9928A.60202@balabit.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:13:30 +0100
From: Laszlo Attila Toth <panther@...abit.hu>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, zdenek.kabelac@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: My system stops during startup with curretn git tree of 2.6.25-rc2
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Laszlo Attila Toth wrote:
>
>> Okay, but I can't figure out what's the problem with it. I don't have
>> wireless card on my linux box also I can't test it but everything else
>> works. Swap is mounted. The concurrency cannot be a problem because the
>> write operation is protected by a lock.
>
> - write_lock_bh(&dev_base_lock);
> - dev->link_mode = nla_get_u8(tb[IFLA_LINKMODE]);
> - write_unlock_bh(&dev_base_lock);
> + if (dev->link_mode != nla_get_u8(tb[IFLA_LINKMODE])) {
> + write_lock_bh(&dev_base_lock);
> + dev->link_mode = nla_get_u8(tb[IFLA_LINKMODE]);
> + write_lock_bh(&dev_base_lock);
> + modified = 1;
> + }
> }
>
> 1) you are accessing dev->link_mode and tb[] outside the dev_base_lock
yes, because tb[IFLA_LINKMODE] is not used by someone else in this case
only dev->link_mode. Although its value is unpredictable in case of a
concurrent access in the condition, it does not affect the final value
of dev->link_mode but the length of the critical section remains
minimal. The if statement may be inside the lock.
> 2) there is obvious and immediate deadlock -- you acquire the
> dev_base_lock twice, without any unlock, just look at the chunk above
Indeed:
"Feb 16 16:51:49 sandman kernel: BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0,"
I missed it. I copied the code from another patch which didn't contain
the two locking statements and when I copied them back it became a
copy-paste bug.
> 3) even with this deadlock fixed, Rafael states that either NM or
> wpa_supplicant (I don't recall from top of my head) still don't work
That's bad. Does my suggestion solve the problem? Again:
- if (modified)
- netdev_state_change(dev);
+ if (modified && dev->flags & IFF_UP)
+ call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGE, dev)
Regards,
Attila
--
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