linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock

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, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:20 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock_acquire+0x168/0x164b()

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 03:53:54PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (11/03/11 15:27), Yong Zhang wrote:
> > > Did you have tried it? Though I don't find time to polish it yet but
> > > I think will smooth your concern.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm compiling the kernel with you patch right now.
> > The whole point was just for
> > case if someone has different approach or whatsoever.
> 
> Understood. If someone can come up with a simple patch which could
> cover the case I mentioned before, that would be great.
> /me goes to poke at it.

I dunno whether this is related but I get the following on 3.1:

[ 5499.537074] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
[ 5499.537080] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
[ 5499.537083] turning off the locking correctness validator.
[ 5499.537088] Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.1.0 #1
[ 5499.537091] Call Trace:
[ 5499.537094]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8107beed>] __lock_acquire+0x165d/0x1e30
[ 5499.537109]  [<ffffffff810321fc>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80
[ 5499.537115]  [<ffffffff8107ccd3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x160
[ 5499.537120]  [<ffffffff810321fc>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80
[ 5499.537126]  [<ffffffff814d9866>] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x50
[ 5499.537130]  [<ffffffff810321fc>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80
[ 5499.537135]  [<ffffffff810321fc>] double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80
[ 5499.537140]  [<ffffffff81039195>] load_balance+0x215/0x6c0
[ 5499.537146]  [<ffffffff81039640>] ? load_balance+0x6c0/0x6c0
[ 5499.537151]  [<ffffffff810396fd>] rebalance_domains+0xbd/0x1d0
[ 5499.537155]  [<ffffffff81039640>] ? load_balance+0x6c0/0x6c0
[ 5499.537161]  [<ffffffff810398ec>] run_rebalance_domains+0xdc/0x130
[ 5499.537166]  [<ffffffff81048dcd>] __do_softirq+0xbd/0x290
[ 5499.537173]  [<ffffffff814dc42c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[ 5499.537178]  [<ffffffff81003eb5>] do_softirq+0x85/0xc0
[ 5499.537183]  [<ffffffff810492ce>] irq_exit+0x9e/0xc0
[ 5499.537189]  [<ffffffff8101ca9f>] smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x2f/0x40
[ 5499.537195]  [<ffffffff814dbeb0>] call_function_single_interrupt+0x70/0x80
[ 5499.537199]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff810096e6>] ? native_sched_clock+0x26/0x70
[ 5499.537212]  [<ffffffffa0038e1a>] ? acpi_idle_enter_simple+0xee/0x11f [processor]
[ 5499.537221]  [<ffffffffa0038e15>] ? acpi_idle_enter_simple+0xe9/0x11f [processor]
[ 5499.537227]  [<ffffffff813f8b1d>] cpuidle_idle_call+0xdd/0x350
[ 5499.537233]  [<ffffffff8100081f>] cpu_idle+0x6f/0xd0
[ 5499.537238]  [<ffffffff814cc665>] start_secondary+0x1ae/0x1b3

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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/