Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:30:52 +0200 | From | Nadia Derbey <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ... |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:17:28 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> wrote: > > >>I'm getting tons of this, and X fails to start >> >>CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y >>CONFIG_SYSVIPC_SYSCTL=y >># CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set >># CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set >>CONFIG_PREEMPT=y >>CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y >>CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y >> >>BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:47 >>in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0 >>no locks held by X/5879. >> [<c012bcb1>] down_write+0x15/0x50 >> [<c01b53af>] do_shmat+0x235/0x3a0 >> [<c0106be2>] sys_ipc+0x146/0x263 >> [<c0102892>] sysenter_past_esp+0xa7/0xb5 >> [<c0102856>] sysenter_past_esp+0x6b/0xb5 >> ======================= > > > Here's a bug: > > --- a/ipc/util.c~ipc-integrate-ipc_checkid-into-ipc_lock-fix-2 > +++ a/ipc/util.c > @@ -691,7 +691,7 @@ struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_lock(struct ip > rcu_read_unlock(); > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > } > - > + rcu_read_unlock(); > return out; > } >
Andrew,
Actually the rcu_read_lock is released in ipc_unlock(). So I think we shouldn't add an rcu_read_unlock() before leaving ipc_lock(). This is a part that has not changed since the ref code.
I'm looking also on my side.
Regards, Nadia
- 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/
| |