| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140508125336.GB4338@lianli>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:53:36 +0200
From: Emil Goode <emilgoode@...il.com>
To: Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cassini: possible recursive locking detected
Hello Meelis,
I think this warning happens because we acquire multiple locks
in a loop in cas_lock_tx() and I believe we should use nested
lock annotation here.
Perhaps you would like to try the attached patch?
It won't fix the deadlock that you mentioned though.
Best regards,
Emil Goode
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 12:39:48PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> While installing Linux on Sun Fire V480, any traffic on builtin cassini
> NIC caused a hang. Worked this around by using Broadcom NIC and tried a
> kernel with most debugging options. This resulted in the following
> warning. Maybe this is the deadlonck I was seeing?
>
> [ 88.316595] =============================================
> [ 88.316597] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 88.316603] 3.15.0-rc4-00202-g30321c7-dirty #11 Not tainted
> [ 88.316605] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 88.316608] swapper/3/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 88.316644] (&(&cp->tx_lock[i])->rlock){..-...}, at: [<0000000000745da0>] cas_link_timer+0xa0/0x460
> [ 88.316646]
> [ 88.316646] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 88.316657] (&(&cp->tx_lock[i])->rlock){..-...}, at: [<0000000000745da0>] cas_link_timer+0xa0/0x460
> [ 88.316659]
> [ 88.316659] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 88.316661] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 88.316661]
> [ 88.316662] CPU0
> [ 88.316664] ----
> [ 88.316668] lock(&(&cp->tx_lock[i])->rlock);
> [ 88.316671] lock(&(&cp->tx_lock[i])->rlock);
> [ 88.316672]
> [ 88.316672] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 88.316672]
> [ 88.316674] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> [ 88.316674]
> [ 88.316677] 3 locks held by swapper/3/1:
> [ 88.316694] #0: ((&cp->link_timer)){+.-...}, at: [<0000000000465f80>] call_timer_fn+0x0/0xe0
> [ 88.316706] #1: (&(&cp->lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<0000000000745d80>] cas_link_timer+0x80/0x460
> [ 88.316716] #2: (&(&cp->tx_lock[i])->rlock){..-...}, at: [<0000000000745da0>] cas_link_timer+0xa0/0x460
> [ 88.316718]
> [ 88.316718] stack backtrace:
> [ 88.316724] CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/3 Not tainted 3.15.0-rc4-00202-g30321c7-dirty #11
> [ 88.316727] Call Trace:
> [ 88.316743] [00000000004a2c5c] __lock_acquire+0x10fc/0x1fa0
> [ 88.316749] [00000000004a406c] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x80
> [ 88.316760] [000000000083e07c] _raw_spin_lock+0x1c/0x40
> [ 88.316765] [0000000000745da0] cas_link_timer+0xa0/0x460
> [ 88.316769] [0000000000465fc8] call_timer_fn+0x48/0xe0
> [ 88.316775] [00000000004665d4] run_timer_softirq+0x214/0x280
> [ 88.316788] [000000000045f650] __do_softirq+0xf0/0x240
> [ 88.316800] [000000000042bd0c] do_softirq_own_stack+0x2c/0x40
> [ 88.316804] [000000000045fb44] irq_exit+0xc4/0xe0
> [ 88.316814] [000000000042fcc8] timer_interrupt+0x88/0xc0
> [ 88.316819] [0000000000426b84] valid_addr_bitmap_patch+0xbc/0x238
> [ 88.316826] [00000000004ab2f8] vprintk_emit+0x1d8/0x540
> [ 88.316842] [0000000000835fb8] printk+0x34/0x48
> [ 88.316847] [00000000004ac3e0] register_console+0x340/0x3e0
> [ 88.316862] [0000000000a74f2c] init_netconsole+0x180/0x20c
> [ 88.316867] [0000000000426eb0] do_one_initcall+0x110/0x1a0
>
> --
> Meelis Roos (mroos@...ux.ee)
> --
> 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
View attachment "0001-net-cassini-use-nested-lock-annotation.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (937 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists