[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131113201043.GE13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:10:43 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: sysfs_bin_mmap lockdep trace.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:45:38PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Al, is this one also known ? Also seen on v3.12-7033-g42a2d923cc34
Umm... I've seen something like that reported after sysfs merge went in
(right after 3.12), but I hadn't looked into details.
> -> #3 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}:
[sr_block_ioctl() grabs sr_mutex and does copy_from_user() under it]
> -> #2 (sr_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[sr_block_open() grabs sr_mutex under ->bd_mutex]
> -> #1 (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[sysfs_blk_trace_attr_show() grabs ->bd_mutex and is called under
sysfs_open_file ->mutex]
> -> #0 (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}:
[sysfs_open_file ->mutex is grabbed by ->mmap()]
Cute... AFAICS, it came from "sysfs: copy bin mmap support from fs/sysfs/bin.c
to fs/sysfs/file.c". The first impression is that sysfs_bin_mmap() is
checking for battr->mmap too late, but I'm not sure whether we need of->mutex
to stabilize it... Tejun, any comments?
--
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