[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1205282042290.15057@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 20:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH] tty: annotate tty_lock() for lockdep
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.4.0-08218-gb48b2c3 #7 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
blogd/279 is trying to acquire lock:
(&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8150f51e>] tty_lock+0x3e/0x90
but task is already holding lock:
(&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8150f51e>] tty_lock+0x3e/0x90
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
[ .. stacktraces removed .. ]
This is a false positive stemming from the fact that lockdep doesn't
understand that proper lock ordering is already achieved in tty_lock_pair()
by ordering by struct tty address.
Introduce tty_lock_nested() to be able to express this explicit
ordering to lockdep and teach tty_lock_pair() to use it.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
---
drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c b/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c
index 69adc80..90d43ad 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
* Getting the big tty mutex.
*/
-void __lockfunc tty_lock(struct tty_struct *tty)
+void tty_lock_common(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
if (tty->magic != TTY_MAGIC) {
printk(KERN_ERR "L Bad %p\n", tty);
@@ -18,10 +18,22 @@ void __lockfunc tty_lock(struct tty_struct *tty)
return;
}
tty_kref_get(tty);
+}
+
+void __lockfunc tty_lock(struct tty_struct *tty)
+{
+ tty_lock_common(tty);
mutex_lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_lock);
+void __lockfunc tty_lock_nested(struct tty_struct *tty,
+ unsigned int subclass)
+{
+ tty_lock_common(tty);
+ mutex_lock_nested(&tty->legacy_mutex, subclass);
+}
+
void __lockfunc tty_unlock(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
if (tty->magic != TTY_MAGIC) {
@@ -42,12 +54,12 @@ void __lockfunc tty_lock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
struct tty_struct *tty2)
{
if (tty < tty2) {
- tty_lock(tty);
- tty_lock(tty2);
+ tty_lock_nested(tty, 1);
+ tty_lock_nested(tty2, 2);
} else {
if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
- tty_lock(tty2);
- tty_lock(tty);
+ tty_lock_nested(tty2, 2);
+ tty_lock_nested(tty, 1);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_lock_pair);
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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