Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:53:54 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3 |
| |
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:44:56 -0400 Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 04:09:47PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > Try reverting debug-shared-irqs.patch, or disable the sound driver? > > Will turn off the sound driver, and see what happens. > > Win! It now boots.
So does Windows 95.
> I blew it up really easy with a socket-fuzzer though. > (http://people.redhat.com/davej/sfuzz.c)
But it kept running OK, yes?
> [ 874.865028] ====================================== > [ 874.943738] [ BUG: bad unlock ordering detected! ] > [ 875.002919] -------------------------------------- > [ 875.062134] sfuzz/23915 is trying to release lock (&sctp_port_alloc_lock) at: > [ 875.149619] [<d128ed4e>] sctp_get_port_local+0xd0/0x285 [sctp] > [ 875.222636] but the next lock to release is: > [ 875.276019] (&sctp_port_hashtable[i].lock){-...}, at: [<d128ed0e>] sctp_get_port_local+0x90/0x285 [sctp] > [ 875.393031] > [ 875.393032] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 875.476583] 1 locks held by sfuzz/23915: > [ 875.526247] #0: (&sctp_port_alloc_lock){-...}, at: [<d128ecd9>] sctp_get_port_local+0x5b/0x285 [sctp] > [ 875.641621] > [ 875.641623] stack backtrace: > [ 875.699891] [<c0104966>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x54/0xfd > [ 875.764425] [<c0104f1a>] show_trace+0xd/0x10 > [ 875.819622] [<c010502f>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b > [ 875.875924] [<c013b4af>] lockdep_release+0x150/0x2d1 > [ 875.939610] [<c032341e>] _spin_unlock+0x16/0x20 > [ 875.998171] [<d128ed4e>] sctp_get_port_local+0xd0/0x285 [sctp] > [ 876.072345] [<d128efd4>] sctp_do_bind+0x9a/0x158 [sctp] > [ 876.139315] [<d128f0ce>] sctp_autobind+0x3c/0x44 [sctp] > [ 876.206310] [<d129253d>] sctp_inet_listen+0xe9/0x139 [sctp] > [ 876.277539] [<c02c20af>] sys_listen+0x4a/0x65 > [ 876.334730] [<c02c308d>] sys_socketcall+0x98/0x186 > [ 876.397175] [<c03239cb>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
This is a really really fussy "BUG", IMO. So we undid the locks in an inappropriate order - big deal.
But often these _are_ things which we should tune up, as an efficiency thing, so it is interesting to hear about them. But calling it a "BUG" is a bit alarmist.
Thanks for booting it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |