Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 - another lockdep splat (networking this time) | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Date | Tue, 10 May 2011 04:23:08 +0200 |
| |
Le lundi 09 mai 2011 à 21:05 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu a écrit : > Seen during boot this afternoon: > > [ 43.309549] > [ 43.309550] =================================================== > [ 43.309553] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] > [ 43.309555] --------------------------------------------------- > [ 43.309558] include/linux/inetdevice.h:226 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > [ 43.309560] > [ 43.309561] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 43.309561] > [ 43.309563] > [ 43.309564] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 > [ 43.309567] 2 locks held by ip/1193: > [ 43.309568] #0: (nlk->cb_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81426c1d>] netlink_dump+0x45/0x1d0 > [ 43.309579] #1: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8141b9b9>] rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0x0/0x156
strange : rcu_read_lock() is correctly held at this point
> [ 43.309587] > [ 43.309587] stack backtrace: > [ 43.309590] Pid: 1193, comm: ip Not tainted 2.6.39-rc6-mmotm0506 #1 > [ 43.309592] Call Trace: > [ 43.309599] [<ffffffff81066b6e>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9a/0xa2 > [ 43.309604] [<ffffffff81468d41>] __in_dev_get_rtnl+0x3c/0x47 > [ 43.309607] [<ffffffff81468ef0>] inet_fill_link_af+0x12/0x5b > [ 43.309611] [<ffffffff8141b8fc>] rtnl_fill_ifinfo+0x665/0x710 > [ 43.309616] [<ffffffff8141ba76>] rtnl_dump_ifinfo+0xbd/0x156 > [ 43.309620] [<ffffffff81426c37>] netlink_dump+0x5f/0x1d0 > [ 43.309624] [<ffffffff81404e3e>] ? consume_skb+0x8a/0x8f > [ 43.309628] [<ffffffff81426fc8>] netlink_recvmsg+0x1dd/0x31d > [ 43.309632] [<ffffffff813ff21f>] ? rcu_read_unlock+0x21/0x23 > [ 43.309636] [<ffffffff813fab57>] sock_recvmsg+0xed/0x112 > [ 43.309641] [<ffffffff810d1ebf>] ? might_fault+0x4e/0x9e > [ 43.309645] [<ffffffff81068816>] ? __lock_release+0x93/0x9c > [ 43.309649] [<ffffffff810d1ebf>] ? might_fault+0x4e/0x9e > [ 43.309652] [<ffffffff810d1f08>] ? might_fault+0x97/0x9e > [ 43.309656] [<ffffffff814065f8>] ? copy_from_user+0x3c/0x44 > [ 43.309660] [<ffffffff813fc047>] __sys_recvmsg+0x16c/0x224 > [ 43.309665] [<ffffffff81059240>] ? up_read+0x23/0x27 > [ 43.309669] [<ffffffff81065165>] ? arch_local_irq_save+0x9/0xc > [ 43.309673] [<ffffffff810f736b>] ? fcheck_files+0xb4/0xeb > [ 43.309676] [<ffffffff810f79f3>] ? fget_light+0x35/0x96 > [ 43.309680] [<ffffffff813fdded>] sys_recvmsg+0x3d/0x5b > [ 43.309686] [<ffffffff815705bb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > [ 44.437679] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: irq 46 for MSI/MSI-X > [ 44.488363] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: irq 46 for MSI/MSI-X > [ 44.494680] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready > >
Thanks for the report, I am taking a look how to fix this.
I am testing following patch, I'll provide an official one when validated.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c index cd9ca08..6b1eb92 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c +++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ errout: static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev) { - struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev); + struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev); if (!in_dev) return 0; @@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@ static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev) static int inet_fill_link_af(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *dev) { - struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev); + struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev); struct nlattr *nla; int i;
-- 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/
| |