Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:55:19 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [bug] xfrm_state_lock: possible circular locking dependency detected |
| |
* Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 04:38:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > DaveJ's Fedora 8 rpm for 2.6.24 works petty well, except for the > > neworking related lockdep assert attached below, which happened while > > starting up ipsec. Let me know if you need any more info - it's a pretty > > stock setup. > > Thanks for the report Ingo! > > This is indeed a regression caused by: > > commit 050f009e16f908932070313c1745d09dc69fd62b > Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> > Date: Tue Oct 9 13:31:47 2007 -0700 > > [IPSEC]: Lock state when copying non-atomic fields to user-space > > For 2.6.24 I'm simply going to revert this change since that just puts > us back to the same state we've been for the last few years. > > For 2.6.25 I'll do a proper fix by making sure that every xfrm state > user obeys the rule that if x->lock is to be taken with > xfrm_state_lock then it must be done from within.
ok, great. I cannot test the revert because i only run distro kernels on this box so i can only confirm that the bug is gone once your revert is upstream and DaveJ has built a new Fedora kernel for it (which is 1-2 days after the commit goes upstream). So consider it fixed once you do the revert and i'll re-report it if i see any similar assert on a kernel that has this commit reverted.
Ingo - 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/
| |