[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:0.064 / U:3.684 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site