linux-kernel - Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330 __netif

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
 __netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()

From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:39:08 -0500

> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.26-Linus-05752-g93ded9b-dirty #53
> ---------------------------------------------
> b43/1997 is trying to acquire lock:
>   (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa028f322>] 
> ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>   (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa028f322>] 
> ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 3 locks held by b43/1997:
>   #0:  ((name)){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80245185>] run_workqueue+0xa7/0x1f2
>   #1:  (&(&local->scan_work)->work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80245185>] 
> run_workqueue+0xa7/0x1f2
>   #2:  (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa028f322>] 
> ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
> 
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 1997, comm: b43 Not tainted 2.6.26-Linus-05752-g93ded9b-dirty #53
> 
> Call Trace:
>   [<ffffffff80255616>] __lock_acquire+0xb7b/0xecc
>   [<ffffffff8040c9a0>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x100/0x10b
>   [<ffffffff802559b8>] lock_acquire+0x51/0x6a
>   [<ffffffffa028f322>] ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
>   [<ffffffff8040dc08>] _spin_lock+0x1e/0x27
>   [<ffffffffa028f322>] ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
>   [<ffffffffa028f6ce>] ieee80211_sta_scan_work+0x0/0x1b8 [mac80211]
>   [<ffffffff802451ce>] run_workqueue+0xf0/0x1f2
>   [<ffffffff802453ab>] worker_thread+0xdb/0xea
>   [<ffffffff80248a5f>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
>   [<ffffffff802452d0>] worker_thread+0x0/0xea
>   [<ffffffff80248731>] kthread+0x47/0x73
>   [<ffffffff8040d7b1>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>   [<ffffffff8020ceb9>] child_rip+0xa/0x11
>   [<ffffffff8020c4ef>] restore_args+0x0/0x30
>   [<ffffffff802486c5>] kthreadd+0x19a/0x1bf
>   [<ffffffff802486ea>] kthread+0x0/0x73
>   [<ffffffff8020ceaf>] child_rip+0x0/0x11

Lockdep doesn't like that we have an array of objects (the TX queues)
and we're iterating over them grabbing all of their locks.

Does anyone know how to teach lockdep that this is OK?
--
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/