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  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:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 3.16-rc6

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
> > to see lockdep splats all over the place which I didn't see before. I'm
> > running rc6 + tip/master.
> >
> > There was one in r8169 yesterday:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140722081840.GA6462@pd.tnic
> >
> > and now I'm seeing the following in a kvm guest. I'm adding some more
> > lists to CC which look like might be related, judging from the stack
> > traces.
> 
> Hmm. I'm not seeing the reason for this.
> 
> > [   31.704282] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> > [   31.704282] 3.16.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> > [   31.704282] ---------------------------------------------------------
> > [   31.704282] Xorg/3484 just changed the state of lock:
> > [   31.704282]  (tasklist_lock){.?.+..}, at: [<ffffffff81184b19>] send_sigio+0x59/0x1b0
> > [   31.704282] but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> > [   31.704282]  (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+...}
> 
> Ok, so the claim is that there's a 'p->alloc_lock' (ie "task_lock()")
> that is inside the tasklist_lock, which would indeed be wrong. But I'm
> not seeing it. The "shortest dependencies" thing seems to imply
> __set_task_comm(), but that only takes task_lock.
> 

It's the reverse, task_lock() inside tasklist_lock is fine but it's 
complaining about taking tasklist_lock inside task_lock().

I don't think it's anything that's sitting in tip/master nor is it 
something that was introduced during this merge window.  I think this has 
been the behavior dating back to commit 94dfd7edfd5c ("USB: HCD: support 
giveback of URB in tasklet context").
--
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