[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110421034057.GA10536@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:40:58 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <samuel@...tiz.org>
Subject: suspect locking in net/irda/iriap.c
I just hit this..
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.39-rc4+ #13
---------------------------------------------
trinity/11336 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&hashbin->hb_spinlock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa0653074>] irias_seq_show+0x4f/0x13b [irda]
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&hashbin->hb_spinlock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa0653669>] irias_seq_start+0x1e/0x59 [irda]
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by trinity/11336:
#0: (&p->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811562b6>] seq_read+0x3d/0x367
#1: (&(&hashbin->hb_spinlock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa0653669>] irias_seq_start+0x1e/0x59 [irda]
stack backtrace:
Pid: 11336, comm: trinity Not tainted 2.6.39-rc4+ #13
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8108a7fd>] __lock_acquire+0x89b/0xc81
[<ffffffffa0653074>] ? irias_seq_show+0x4f/0x13b [irda]
[<ffffffff8108b0e3>] lock_acquire+0x108/0x133
[<ffffffffa0653074>] ? irias_seq_show+0x4f/0x13b [irda]
[<ffffffff814cc14b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
[<ffffffffa0653074>] ? irias_seq_show+0x4f/0x13b [irda]
[<ffffffffa0653074>] irias_seq_show+0x4f/0x13b [irda]
[<ffffffff811564fe>] seq_read+0x285/0x367
[<ffffffff81156279>] ? seq_lseek+0xe8/0xe8
[<ffffffff8118a192>] proc_reg_read+0x90/0xaf
[<ffffffff8113ab26>] vfs_read+0xac/0xf3
[<ffffffff8113c043>] ? fget_light+0x3a/0xa1
[<ffffffff8113abba>] sys_read+0x4d/0x74
[<ffffffff814d2d02>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
irias_seq_start does this ..
996 {
997 spin_lock_irq(&irias_objects->hb_spinlock);
998
999 return *pos ? irias_seq_idx(*pos - 1) : SEQ_START_TOKEN;
1000 }
and then unlocks it in irias_seq_stop.
meanwhile in the seq_show iterator ...
1029 /* Careful for priority inversions here !
1030 * All other uses of attrib spinlock are independent of
1031 * the object spinlock, so we are safe. Jean II */
1032 spin_lock(&obj->attribs->hb_spinlock);
My reading of that comment suggests that the two locks aren't the same,
so is this just missing a lockdep annotation ?
Dave
--
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