[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1110251419170.21837@ionos>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:30:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, sim@...tway.ca,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, David Miller wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:13:48 +0200
>
> > Added netdev, because this seems to be a generic networking bug (ABBA
> > between sk_lock and icsk_retransmit_timer if my quick scan looks
> > correct).
> >
> > Davem?
>
> I suspect that's all just a side effect of whatever is creating the
> preempt_count imbalance.
Something is holding socket lock and it was acquired in sk_clone()
which does bh_lock_sock() and returns with the lock held, though I got
completely lost in the gazillions of possible callchains ...
While staring at it I found an missing unlock in sk_clone() itself,
but that's not the one which causes the leak. Lockdep would have
complained about that separately :)
Thanks,
tglx
--------->
Subject: net: Unlock sock before calling sk_free()
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Index: linux-2.6/net/core/sock.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/core/sock.c
+++ linux-2.6/net/core/sock.c
@@ -1260,6 +1260,7 @@ struct sock *sk_clone(const struct sock
/* It is still raw copy of parent, so invalidate
* destructor and make plain sk_free() */
newsk->sk_destruct = NULL;
+ bh_unlock_sock(newsk);
sk_free(newsk);
newsk = NULL;
goto out;
--
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