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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a4423d670809171133r39260814y211ba8104698d5f2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:33:28 +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 Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>:
> 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.
>
I can not reproduce it.
--
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/