[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110305005640.246381576@clark.kroah.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:56:03 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc: stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: [58/73] fix cfg80211_wext_siwfreq lock ordering...
2.6.37-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------
From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
commit 4f919a3bc54da01db829c520ce4b1fabfde1c3f7 upstream.
I previously managed to reproduce a hang while scanning wireless
channels (reproducible with airodump-ng hopping channels); subsequent
lockdep instrumentation revealed a lock ordering issue.
Without knowing the design intent, it looks like the locks should be
taken in reverse order; please comment.
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.38-rc5-341cd #4
-------------------------------------------------------
airodump-ng/15445 is trying to acquire lock:
(&rdev->devlist_mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816b1266>]
cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
but task is already holding lock:
(&wdev->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816b125c>] cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xbc/0x100
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&wdev->mtx){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff810a79d6>] lock_acquire+0xc6/0x280
[<ffffffff816d6bce>] mutex_lock_nested+0x6e/0x4b0
[<ffffffff81696080>] cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call+0x430/0x5f0
[<ffffffff8109351b>] notifier_call_chain+0x8b/0x100
[<ffffffff810935b1>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x20
[<ffffffff81576d92>] call_netdevice_notifiers+0x32/0x60
[<ffffffff815771a4>] __dev_notify_flags+0x34/0x80
[<ffffffff81577230>] dev_change_flags+0x40/0x70
[<ffffffff8158587c>] do_setlink+0x1fc/0x8d0
[<ffffffff81586042>] rtnl_setlink+0xf2/0x140
[<ffffffff81586923>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x163/0x270
[<ffffffff8159d741>] netlink_rcv_skb+0xa1/0xd0
[<ffffffff815867b0>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x20/0x30
[<ffffffff8159d39a>] netlink_unicast+0x2ba/0x300
[<ffffffff8159dd57>] netlink_sendmsg+0x267/0x3e0
[<ffffffff8155e364>] sock_sendmsg+0xe4/0x110
[<ffffffff8155f3a3>] sys_sendmsg+0x253/0x3b0
[<ffffffff81003192>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
-> #0 (&rdev->devlist_mtx){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff810a7222>] __lock_acquire+0x1622/0x1d10
[<ffffffff810a79d6>] lock_acquire+0xc6/0x280
[<ffffffff816d6bce>] mutex_lock_nested+0x6e/0x4b0
[<ffffffff816b1266>] cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
[<ffffffff816b2fad>] ioctl_standard_call+0x5d/0xd0
[<ffffffff816b3223>] T.808+0x163/0x170
[<ffffffff816b326a>] wext_handle_ioctl+0x3a/0x90
[<ffffffff815798d2>] dev_ioctl+0x6f2/0x830
[<ffffffff8155cf3d>] sock_ioctl+0xfd/0x290
[<ffffffff8117dffd>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x9d/0x590
[<ffffffff8117e53a>] sys_ioctl+0x4a/0x80
[<ffffffff81003192>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by airodump-ng/15445:
#0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81586782>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x20
#1: (&wdev->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816b125c>]
cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xbc/0x100
stack backtrace:
Pid: 15445, comm: airodump-ng Not tainted 2.6.38-rc5-341cd #4
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff810a3f0a>] ? print_circular_bug+0xfa/0x100
[<ffffffff810a7222>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1622/0x1d10
[<ffffffff810a1f99>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x29/0xc0
[<ffffffff810a79d6>] ? lock_acquire+0xc6/0x280
[<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
[<ffffffff810a31d7>] ? mark_held_locks+0x67/0x90
[<ffffffff816d6bce>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x6e/0x4b0
[<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
[<ffffffff810a31d7>] ? mark_held_locks+0x67/0x90
[<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
[<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
[<ffffffff816b2fad>] ? ioctl_standard_call+0x5d/0xd0
[<ffffffff8157818b>] ? __dev_get_by_name+0x9b/0xc0
[<ffffffff816b2f50>] ? ioctl_standard_call+0x0/0xd0
[<ffffffff816b3223>] ? T.808+0x163/0x170
[<ffffffff8112ddf2>] ? might_fault+0x72/0xd0
[<ffffffff816b326a>] ? wext_handle_ioctl+0x3a/0x90
[<ffffffff8112de3b>] ? might_fault+0xbb/0xd0
[<ffffffff815798d2>] ? dev_ioctl+0x6f2/0x830
[<ffffffff810a1bae>] ? put_lock_stats+0xe/0x40
[<ffffffff810a1c8c>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0xac/0x150
[<ffffffff8155cf3d>] ? sock_ioctl+0xfd/0x290
[<ffffffff8117dffd>] ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x9d/0x590
[<ffffffff8116c8ff>] ? fget_light+0x1df/0x3c0
[<ffffffff8117e53a>] ? sys_ioctl+0x4a/0x80
[<ffffffff81003192>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
---
net/wireless/wext-compat.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
+++ b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
@@ -802,11 +802,11 @@ int cfg80211_wext_siwfreq(struct net_dev
return freq;
if (freq == 0)
return -EINVAL;
- wdev_lock(wdev);
mutex_lock(&rdev->devlist_mtx);
+ wdev_lock(wdev);
err = cfg80211_set_freq(rdev, wdev, freq, NL80211_CHAN_NO_HT);
- mutex_unlock(&rdev->devlist_mtx);
wdev_unlock(wdev);
+ mutex_unlock(&rdev->devlist_mtx);
return err;
default:
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists