linux-kernel - hfsplus_unlink...hfsplus_block

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:07:55 +0100 (CET)
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
cc:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: hfsplus_unlink...hfsplus_block_free: lockdep warning

Hi,

I got this with 2.6.25-rc3 when doing an rm -rf on a HFS+ filesystem:


[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.25-rc3 #6
---------------------------------------------
rm/7564 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209 [hfsplus]

but task is already holding lock:
 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80284f1c>] vfs_unlink+0x41/0xb7

other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by rm/7564:
 #0:  (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5/1){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80286cac>] do_unlinkat+0x6c/0x154
 #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80284f1c>] vfs_unlink+0x41/0xb7

stack backtrace:
Pid: 7564, comm: rm Not tainted 2.6.25-rc3 #6

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff802497bb>] __lock_acquire+0x849/0xbd5
 [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209
 [<ffffffff80249efd>] lock_acquire+0x51/0x6c
 [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209
 [<ffffffff80246b71>] debug_mutex_lock_common+0x16/0x23
 [<ffffffff80418eb0>] mutex_lock_nested+0xd9/0x268
 [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209
 [<ffffffff880f647f>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_free_extents+0x54/0x9b
 [<ffffffff880f6a92>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_file_truncate+0xa4/0x2ce
 [<ffffffff880f52de>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_delete_inode+0x57/0x5d
 [<ffffffff880f77e6>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_unlink+0xd0/0x158
 [<ffffffff80284f36>] vfs_unlink+0x5b/0xb7
 [<ffffffff80286cf1>] do_unlinkat+0xb1/0x154
 [<ffffffff80419e4c>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x3a
 [<ffffffff80248b03>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xf3/0x117
 [<ffffffff80419e4c>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x3a
 [<ffffffff880fb4a5>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_uni2asc+0x251/0x29f
 [<ffffffff8020b0bb>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80


Is this merely a case for annotation?
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- --=- ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

--
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/