lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: [2.6.33-rc5] starting emacs makes lockdep warning
From
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
>> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:01:12PM +0800, Am??rico Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I agree, it seems that patch is useless, since we already
>>>> > do lock_kernel() before calling __f_setown()...
>>>>
>>>> What's to prevent pid from being freed under us?  BKL won't...
>>>
>>> I don't understand this issue at all. so, this is stupid dumb question.
>>> Why can't we write following code?
>>>
>>>
>>>                enum pid_type type;
>>>                struct pid *pid;
>>>                if (!waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
>>>                        tty->minimum_to_wake = 1;
>>>                spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
>>>                if (tty->pgrp) {
>>>                        pid = tty->pgrp;
>>>                        type = PIDTYPE_PGID;
>>>                } else {
>>>                        pid = task_pid(current);
>>>                        type = PIDTYPE_PID;
>>>                }
>>>                get_pid(pid)                                    // insert here
>>>                spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
>>>                retval = __f_setown(filp, pid, type, 0);
>>>                put_pid(pid)                                    // insert here
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, this seems reasonable for me, but not sure if this is the best fix.
>
> That or tweak __f_setown to use irqsave/irqrestore variants for it's
> locks, __f_setown is already atomic.  I prefer that direction because the
> code is just a little simpler.
>

Oh, very good advice!

Patch is below.

-------------->
Commit 703625118 causes a lockdep warning:

[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.33-rc5 #77
---------------------------------------------------------
emacs/1609 just changed the state of lock:
(&(&tty->ctrl_lock)->rlock){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff8127c648>]
tty_fasync+0xe8/0x190
but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
(&(&sighand->siglock)->rlock){-.....}

This is due to we use write_lock_irq() in __f_setown() which turns
the IRQ on in write_unlock_irq(), causes this warning.

Switch it ot write_lock_irqsave() and write_unlock_irqrestore(),
as suggested by Eric.

Reported-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>

----
diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c
index 97e01dc..556b404 100644
--- a/fs/fcntl.c
+++ b/fs/fcntl.c
@@ -199,7 +199,8 @@ static int setfl(int fd, struct file * filp, unsigned long arg)
static void f_modown(struct file *filp, struct pid *pid, enum pid_type type,
int force)
{
- write_lock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
+ int flags;
+ write_lock_irqsave(&filp->f_owner.lock, flags);
if (force || !filp->f_owner.pid) {
put_pid(filp->f_owner.pid);
filp->f_owner.pid = get_pid(pid);
@@ -211,7 +212,7 @@ static void f_modown(struct file *filp, struct pid *pid, enum pid_type type,
filp->f_owner.euid = cred->euid;
}
}
- write_unlock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
+ write_unlock_irqrestore(&filp->f_owner.lock, flags);
}

int __f_setown(struct file *filp, struct pid *pid, enum pid_type type,
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-26 10:41    [W:0.071 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site