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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:37:45 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: jarkao2@...il.com Cc: jeff@...zik.org, denys@...p.net.lb, hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][NET] ifb: set separate lockdep classes for queue locks From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:34:41 +0000 > Subject: [NET] ifb: set separate lockdep classes for queue locks > > > [2148614.154688] ======================================================= > > [2148614.154805] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > > [2148614.154862] 2.6.24.3-build-0023 #9 > > [2148614.154913] ------------------------------------------------------- > > [2148614.154969] swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock: > > [2148614.155023] (&ifb_queue_lock_key){-+..}, at: [<c0289d4d>] > > dev_queue_xmit+0x177/0x302 > > [2148614.155245] > > [2148614.155246] but task is already holding lock: > > [2148614.155346] (&p->tcfc_lock){-+..}, at: [<f8a10066>] tcf_mirred+0x20/ > > 0x180 [act_mirred] > > [2148614.155569] > > [2148614.155570] which lock already depends on the new lock. > > lockdep warns of locking order while using ifb with sch_ingress and > act_mirred: ingress_lock, tcfc_lock, queue_lock (usually queue_lock > is at the beginning). This patch is only to tell lockdep that ifb is > a different device (e.g. from eth) and has its own pair of queue > locks. (This warning is a false-positive in common scenario of using > ifb; yet there are possible situations, when this order could be > dangerous; lockdep should warn in such a case.) > > > Reported-and-tested-by: Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@...p.net.lb> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> > Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca> Jarek, the code in linux/lockdep.h provides dummy do-nothing versions of the lockdep_*() interfaces, so the spinlock debug ifdeffing you do here is unnecessary. Simply include linux/lockdep.h and perform the actions unconditionally. For example, this is how net/core/sock.c does things. Also, please upgrade Jamal's "CC" to an "Acked-by" :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists