linux-kernel - Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS?

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:	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:06:02 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To:	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>
Cc:	lachlan@....com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS?

Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:58:38PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:42:16PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> > Bisected to:
>> > dd509097cb0b76d3836385f80d6b2d6fd3b97757 is first bad commit
>> > commit dd509097cb0b76d3836385f80d6b2d6fd3b97757
>> > Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@....com>
>> > Date:   Mon Sep 29 14:56:40 2008 +1000
>> > 
>> >     [XFS] Unlock inode before calling xfs_idestroy()
>> > 
>> >     Lock debugging reported the ilock was being destroyed without being
>> >     unlocked. We don't need to lock the inode until we are going to insert it
>> >     into the radix tree.
>> 
>> Ah, OK, I see the problem, though I don't understand why I'm not
>> seeing the might_sleep() triggering all the time given that I always
>> build with:
>> 
>> $ grep SLEEP .config
>> CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP=y
>> 
>> Basically the above commit moved xfs_ilock() inside
>> radix_tree_preload()/radix_tree_preload_end(), which means we are
>> taking a rwsem() while we have an elevated preempt count. I'll
>> get a patch out to fix it.
>
> Patch below (against the xfs master/linux-next branch) should fix the
> regression. I've just started QA on it. Can you please check that
> it works for you, Alexander?

Ran into the same problem, the fix worked for me.

Thank you.

	Hannes
--
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/