linux-kernel - Re: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820

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:	Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:24:32 +0530
From:	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
CC:	jay kumar <jaykumarks@...il.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug: "bad unlock balance detected" 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820

Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM, jay kumar <jaykumarks@...il.com> wrote:
>> While testing 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820 ,  i observed this    "BUG:bad
>> unlock balance detected" during boot time
>>
>> commit 765d4840cc9cca98c0cc4ff4764608780c3265f6
>> Author: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>> Date:   Wed Aug 20 18:59:47 2008 +1000
>>
>>
>> Bug info:
>>
>> [    0.140173] =====================================
>> [    0.145977] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
>> [    0.145977] -------------------------------------
>> [    0.145977] khelper/12 is trying to release lock (&p->cred_exec_mutex) at:
>> [    0.146977] [<c05c624f>] mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf
>> [    0.146977] but there are no more locks to release!
>> [    0.146977]
>> [    0.146977] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [    0.146977] no locks held by khelper/12.
>> [    0.146977]
>> [    0.146977] stack backtrace:
>> [    0.146977] Pid: 12, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820 #13
>> [    0.146977]  [<c05c624f>] ? mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf
>> [    0.146977]  [<c0242944>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xa5/0xb2
>> [    0.146977]  [<c05c624f>] ? mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf
>> [    0.146977]  [<c0245cd7>] lock_release+0x8f/0x186
>> [    0.146977]  [<c05c61f0>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x9b/0xed
>> [    0.146977]  [<c05c624f>] mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf
>> [    0.146977]  [<c029506f>] free_bprm+0x24/0x39
>> [    0.146977]  [<c029644e>] do_execve+0x1e5/0x1fb
>> [    0.146977]  [<c0202156>] sys_execve+0x2e/0x51
>> [    0.146977]  [<c0203a72>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
>> [    0.146977]  [<c0206654>] ? kernel_execve+0x1c/0x21
>> [    0.146977]  [<c023383c>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x0/0x129
>> [    0.146977]  [<c023395b>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x11f/0x129
>> [    0.146977]  [<c023383c>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x0/0x129
>> [    0.146977]  [<c020466b>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
>> [    0.146977]  =======================
> 
> (config clipped)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the report. The error comes from
> 
> commit d9a939fb80ef390b78b3c801f668bd1e35ebc970
> Author: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Date:   Thu Aug 7 20:02:20 2008 +1000
> 
>     CRED: Make execve() take advantage of copy-on-write credentials
> 
> (Added to Cc. I guess it's also nice to Cc linux-next on errors in -next code.)
> 
> I couldn't reproduce your original failure, but I've attempted to fix
> it by reordering the mutex unlock and bprm free and removing the
> extraneous unlock (see attached patch; it boots for me without
> errors).
> 
> 
> Vegard
> 
Hi,

Thanks, the patch fixes the "bad unlock balance" warning I was hitting
with the next-20080821 patchset.

Tested-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kamalesh Babulal,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM, ISTL.
--
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/