linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache

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]

Message-ID: <a4423d670809160035s25fd5227j831492b3f43daa6a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:35:20 +0400
From:	"Alexander Beregalov" <a.beregalov@...il.com>
To:	"Alexander Beregalov" <a.beregalov@...il.com>, rjw@...k.pl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8

2008/9/16 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 03:31:38AM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.27-rc6-00034-gd1c6d2e #3
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> nfsd/1766 is trying to acquire lock:
>>  (iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c01743fb>] shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8
>>
>>  but task is already holding lock:
>>   (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<c021134f>]
>>   xfs_ilock+0xa2/0xd6
>>
>>
>> I read files through nfs and saw delay for few seconds.
>> System is x86_32, nfs, xfs.
>> The last working kernel is 2.6.27-rc5,
>> I do not know yet is it reproducible or not.
>
> <sigh>
>
> We need a FAQ for this one. It's a false positive.  Google for an
> explanation - I've explained it 4 or 5 times in the past year and
> asked that the lockdep folk invent a special annotation for the
> iprune_mutex (or memory reclaim) because of the way it can cause
> recursion into the filesystem and hence invert lock orders without
> causing deadlocks.....

Hi Dave

Yes, you already explained a similar message to me, but it was a bug,
not false positive.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/29
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/315

I will try to bisect.
It is not a OOM case.
--
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/