linux-kernel - Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1

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: <1249657743.32113.733.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:09:03 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 09:46 -0500, Clark Williams wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I'm getting this warning from lockdep when booting on my T60. 
> 
> The two addresses reported (0xffffffff812664a2 and 0xffffffff812664ae)
> actually bracket one call to mutex_lock() in driver_attach() so I'm not
> sure what the complaint is.
> 
> Clark
> 
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1 #37
> ---------------------------------------------
> swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812664ae>]
> __driver_attach+0x48/0x81
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812664a2>]
> __driver_attach+0x3c/0x81
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 1 lock held by swapper/1:
>  #0:  (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812664a2>]
> __driver_attach+0x3c/0x81

Oh, that's tglx who's gone wild with sem->mutex conversions.

It used to be that _all_ dev->sem instances were taken on suspend or
something like that, I think that got fixed a long while back.

I'd have to look at what the current locking requirements for dev->sem
are. 

I remember talking to Alan on several occasions about this, and I just
went over some of the old emails, but I must say the precise
requirements stay hidden from me. Also, I'm not sure these emails are
still representative of the current state.

--
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/