linux-kernel - Re: [perf/x86] 8de4a00661: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c:80 debug_mutex

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:41:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
cc:	lkp@...org, tipbuild@...or.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [perf/x86] 8de4a00661: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at
 kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c:80 debug_mutex_unlock+0x20c/0x2b3

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
> [    1.863354] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c:80 debug_mutex_unlock+0x20c/0x2b3
> [    1.877193] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(lock->owner != current)
> 
> [    1.979431]  [<ffffffff8167508c>] mutex_unlock+0x9/0xb
> [    1.979431]  [<ffffffff8167508c>] mutex_unlock+0x9/0xb
> [    1.990691]  [<ffffffff8105a67f>] cpuhp_store_callbacks+0x5a/0x63

I have a hard time to figure out how that can happen:

static void cpuhp_store_callbacks(enum cpuhp_state state,
                                  const char *name,
                                  int (*startup)(unsigned int cpu),
                                  int (*teardown)(unsigned int cpu))
{
        /* (Un)Install the callbacks for further cpu hotplug operations */
        struct cpuhp_step *sp;

        mutex_lock(&cpuhp_state_mutex);
 	sp = cpuhp_get_step(state);
	sp->startup = startup;
        sp->teardown = teardown;
        sp->name = name;
        mutex_unlock(&cpuhp_state_mutex);
}

Confused ....