| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <519BEB2D.4040607@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 17:46:21 -0400
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: lockdep spew from tty
On 05/21/2013 05:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:31:04PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 11:22 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> Hi Greg !
>>
>> Adding Jiri...
>
> I'll let Jiri work it out, but I think this is a known issue, and can be
> ignored, right?
This is the same bug reported by Dave Jones and fixed by:
'tty/vt: Fix vc_deallocate() lock order'
which hasn't quite yet made its way to mainline.
I'll reiterate my apology here for not running systemd (which is
the necessary userspace component to trigger this lockdep warning).
At the same time, I'll reiterate my disappointment with a 'new'
userspace component using a broken and largely defunct kernel
interface.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
>>> Caught that on a console today running some 3.10-almost-rc2
>>> (based on ec50f2a97a4a7098a81b40030e0bfe28bdc43740). Right now I don't
>>> have the bandwidth to investigate but I though you might be
>>> interested :-)
>>>
>>> I'll take another peek if it happens again.
>>>
>>> ======================================================
>>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>> 3.10.0-rc1-test #19 Not tainted
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> kworker/24:1/1089 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> (&ldata->output_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c00000000037aa0c>] .process_echoes+0x34/0x2ec
>>>
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>> ((&buf->work)){+.+...}, at: [<c0000000000778b4>] .process_one_work+0x1f8/0x43c
>>>
>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>
>>>
>>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>>
>>> -> #2 ((&buf->work)){+.+...}:
>>> [<c00000000007714c>] .flush_work+0x38/0x258
>>> [<c0000000000781e4>] .__cancel_work_timer+0xe0/0x140
>>> [<c0000000003820c4>] .tty_port_destroy+0x14/0x2c
>>> [<c000000000390d88>] .vc_deallocate+0xfc/0x128
>>> [<c000000000385d8c>] .vt_ioctl+0xae4/0x13a4
>>> [<c00000000037a218>] .tty_ioctl+0xd1c/0xe68
>>> [<c0000000001403b0>] .vfs_ioctl+0x44/0x6c
>>> [<c000000000140e54>] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x614/0x6ac
>>> [<c000000000140f30>] .SyS_ioctl+0x44/0x70
>>> [<c000000000009ca4>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x98
>>>
>>> -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
>>> [<c00000000005aeec>] .console_lock+0x80/0x98
>>> [<c00000000039180c>] .do_con_write.part.16+0x3c/0x1fb0
>>> [<c0000000003937ec>] .con_write+0x28/0x40
>>> [<c00000000037b344>] .n_tty_write+0x28c/0x424
>>> [<c000000000377c84>] .tty_write+0x184/0x238
>>> [<c00000000012f0ec>] .vfs_write+0xd4/0x1cc
>>> [<c00000000012f5d0>] .SyS_write+0x48/0x7c
>>> [<c000000000009ca4>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x98
>>>
>>> -> #0 (&ldata->output_lock){+.+...}:
>>> [<c0000000000a4dc4>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x70
>>> [<c000000000705780>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x9c/0x4d4
>>> [<c00000000037aa0c>] .process_echoes+0x34/0x2ec
>>> [<c00000000037cc04>] .n_tty_receive_buf+0xc64/0xf90
>>> [<c000000000380d3c>] .flush_to_ldisc+0x110/0x1ac
>>> [<c00000000007793c>] .process_one_work+0x280/0x43c
>>> [<c000000000077d10>] .worker_thread+0x1e0/0x324
>>> [<c00000000007e360>] .kthread+0xc8/0xd4
>>> [<c000000000009fac>] .ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0xb0
>>>
>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>
>>> Chain exists of:
>>> &ldata->output_lock --> console_lock --> (&buf->work)
>>>
>>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>>
>>> CPU0 CPU1
>>> ---- ----
>>> lock((&buf->work));
>>> lock(console_lock);
>>> lock((&buf->work));
>>> lock(&ldata->output_lock);
>>>
>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>>
>>> 2 locks held by kworker/24:1/1089:
>>> #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<c0000000000778b4>] .process_one_work+0x1f8/0x43c
>>> #1: ((&buf->work)){+.+...}, at: [<c0000000000778b4>] .process_one_work+0x1f8/0x43c
>>>
>>> stack backtrace:
>>> CPU: 24 PID: 1089 Comm: kworker/24:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-rc1-test #19
>>> Workqueue: events .flush_to_ldisc
>>> Call Trace:
>>> [c000003ed7c37350] [c000000000011b18] .show_stack+0x50/0x14c (unreliable)
>>> [c000003ed7c37420] [c00000000070eb90] .dump_stack+0x28/0x3c
>>> [c000003ed7c37490] [c00000000070b16c] .print_circular_bug+0x364/0x374
>>> [c000003ed7c37540] [c0000000000a4088] .__lock_acquire+0x14d8/0x1d08
>>> [c000003ed7c37690] [c0000000000a4dc4] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x70
>>> [c000003ed7c37720] [c000000000705780] .mutex_lock_nested+0x9c/0x4d4
>>> [c000003ed7c37830] [c00000000037aa0c] .process_echoes+0x34/0x2ec
>>> [c000003ed7c378f0] [c00000000037cc04] .n_tty_receive_buf+0xc64/0xf90
>>> [c000003ed7c37aa0] [c000000000380d3c] .flush_to_ldisc+0x110/0x1ac
>>> [c000003ed7c37b60] [c00000000007793c] .process_one_work+0x280/0x43c
>>> [c000003ed7c37c20] [c000000000077d10] .worker_thread+0x1e0/0x324
>>> [c000003ed7c37cd0] [c00000000007e360] .kthread+0xc8/0xd4
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ben.
--
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