linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 0/2] sysfs: fix s

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, 29 Jan 2010 16:38:23 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 0/2] sysfs: fix s_active lockdep warning

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> writes:
> 
>> Recently we met a lockdep warning from sysfs during s2ram or cpu hotplug.
>> As reported by several people, it is something like:
>>
>> [ 6967.926563] ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S3
>> [ 6967.956156] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
>> [ 6967.970401]
>> [ 6967.970408] =============================================
>> [ 6967.970419] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> [ 6967.970431] 2.6.33-rc2-git6 #27
>> [ 6967.970439] ---------------------------------------------
>> [ 6967.970450] pm-suspend/22147 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 6967.970460]  (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d2941>]
>> sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f
>> [ 6967.970493]
>> [ 6967.970497] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 6967.970506]  (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d4110>]
>> sysfs_get_active_two+0x16/0x36
>> [...]
>>
>> Eric already provides a patch for this[1], but it still can't fix the
>> problem. I add the missing part of Eric's patch and send these two patches
>> together, hopefully we can fix the warning completely.
>>
>> 1. http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/10/282
>>
>>
>> Reported-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
>> Reported-by: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
>> Reported-by: Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>
>> Reported-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> 
> Thanks for following up on this.
> 
> I suspect we may want to create a separate class for each sysfs file
> instead of playing whack-a-mole and creating a subclass each time we
> have problems.
> 
> I don't see why the rules for one sysfs file should be the same as for
> any other sysfs file.
> 

I am confused, we don't know who created sysfs files unless we
separate them by subclasses, the way of your patch is very straight
ward.

--
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/