[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [bug] xfrm_state_lock: possible circular locking dependency detected

    * Herbert Xu <> 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 <>
    > 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.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-24 08:59    [W:0.032 / U:0.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site