Messages in this thread | | | From | "Eric W. Biederman" <> | Date | Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:13:30 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] proc: fix inconsistent lock state |
| |
Xiaotian Feng <xtfeng@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lockdep found an inconsistent lock state when rcu is processing >delayed work in softirq. Currently, kernel is using >spin_lock/spin_unlock >to protect proc_inum_ida, but proc_free_inum is called by rcu in >softirq >context.
Emarassing. Thank you for finding this.
Something doesn't feel right. I don't think there should be a path where we get to proc_free_inum from bh context.
Rcu callbacks should be running in process context (if a special one).
I need to sleep on this one but do_softirq -> rcu_process_callbacks seems wrong.
I will dig into this more after I have finished sleeping. What rcu options do you have selected?
Eric
>Use spin_lock_bh/spin_unlock_bh fix following lockdep warning. > >[ 49.709127] ================================= >[ 49.709360] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] >[ 49.709593] 3.7.0 #36 Not tainted >[ 49.709846] --------------------------------- >[ 49.710080] inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage. >[ 49.710377] swapper/1/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: >[ 49.710640] (proc_inum_lock){+.?...}, at: [<ffffffff8124280c>] >proc_free_inum+0x1c/0x50 >[ 49.711287] {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: >[ 49.711540] [<ffffffff8110dc4e>] __lock_acquire+0x8ae/0xca0 >[ 49.711896] [<ffffffff8110e1d9>] lock_acquire+0x199/0x200 >[ 49.712242] [<ffffffff81b295e1>] _raw_spin_lock+0x41/0x50 >[ 49.712590] [<ffffffff81242efc>] proc_alloc_inum+0x4c/0xd0 >[ 49.712941] [<ffffffff811f1799>] alloc_mnt_ns+0x49/0xc0 >[ 49.713282] [<ffffffff811f3365>] create_mnt_ns+0x25/0x70 >[ 49.713625] [<ffffffff82115443>] mnt_init+0x161/0x1c7 >[ 49.713962] [<ffffffff82114f51>] vfs_caches_init+0x107/0x11a >[ 49.714392] [<ffffffff820f3c67>] start_kernel+0x348/0x38c >[ 49.714815] [<ffffffff820f3335>] >x86_64_start_reservations+0x131/0x136 >[ 49.715279] [<ffffffff820f343d>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x103/0x112 >[ 49.715728] irq event stamp: 2993422 >[ 49.716006] hardirqs last enabled at (2993422): >[<ffffffff81b29f75>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x55/0x80 >[ 49.716661] hardirqs last disabled at (2993421): >[<ffffffff81b296f9>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x29/0x70 >[ 49.717300] softirqs last enabled at (2993394): >[<ffffffff810ab0b3>] _local_bh_enable+0x13/0x20 >[ 49.717920] softirqs last disabled at (2993395): >[<ffffffff81b2c33c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 >[ 49.718528] >[ 49.718528] other info that might help us debug this: >[ 49.718992] Possible unsafe locking scenario: >[ 49.718992] >[ 49.719433] CPU0 >[ 49.719669] ---- >[ 49.719902] lock(proc_inum_lock); >[ 49.720308] <Interrupt> >[ 49.720548] lock(proc_inum_lock); >[ 49.720961] >[ 49.720961] *** DEADLOCK *** >[ 49.720961] >[ 49.721477] no locks held by swapper/1/0. >[ 49.721769] >[ 49.721769] stack backtrace: >[ 49.722150] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.7.0 #36 >[ 49.722555] Call Trace: >[ 49.722787] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810a40f1>] ? vprintk_emit+0x471/0x510 >[ 49.723307] [<ffffffff81109ce5>] print_usage_bug+0x2a5/0x2c0 >[ 49.723671] [<ffffffff8110a03b>] mark_lock+0x33b/0x5e0 >[ 49.724014] [<ffffffff8110dbb3>] __lock_acquire+0x813/0xca0 >[ 49.724374] [<ffffffff8110a8ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 >[ 49.724741] [<ffffffff8110e1d9>] lock_acquire+0x199/0x200 >[ 49.725095] [<ffffffff8124280c>] ? proc_free_inum+0x1c/0x50 >[ 49.725455] [<ffffffff81b295e1>] _raw_spin_lock+0x41/0x50 >[ 49.725806] [<ffffffff8124280c>] ? proc_free_inum+0x1c/0x50 >[ 49.726165] [<ffffffff8124280c>] proc_free_inum+0x1c/0x50 >[ 49.726519] [<ffffffff810c76a2>] ? put_pid+0x42/0x60 >[ 49.726857] [<ffffffff81128cac>] free_pid_ns+0x1c/0x50 >[ 49.727201] [<ffffffff81128d0e>] put_pid_ns+0x2e/0x50 >[ 49.727540] [<ffffffff810c76aa>] put_pid+0x4a/0x60 >[ 49.727868] [<ffffffff810c76d2>] delayed_put_pid+0x12/0x20 >[ 49.728225] [<ffffffff81132ed2>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x462/0x790 >[ 49.728606] [<ffffffff810ab4e4>] __do_softirq+0x1b4/0x3b0 >[ 49.728959] [<ffffffff81104132>] ? >clockevents_program_event+0xc2/0xf0 >[ 49.729354] [<ffffffff81b2c33c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 >[ 49.729702] [<ffffffff81057bf9>] do_softirq+0x59/0xd0 >[ 49.730039] [<ffffffff810ab024>] irq_exit+0x54/0xd0 >[ 49.730370] [<ffffffff81b2ca05>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x95/0xa3 >[ 49.730755] [<ffffffff81b2bbf2>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x72/0x80 >[ 49.731124] <EOI> [<ffffffff81b2a473>] ? >retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13 >[ 49.731658] [<ffffffff8199d125>] ? cpuidle_wrap_enter+0x55/0xa0 >[ 49.732029] [<ffffffff8199d121>] ? cpuidle_wrap_enter+0x51/0xa0 >[ 49.732399] [<ffffffff8199d180>] cpuidle_enter_tk+0x10/0x20 >[ 49.732759] [<ffffffff8199cb57>] cpuidle_enter_state+0x17/0x50 >[ 49.733128] [<ffffffff8199d507>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x287/0x520 >[ 49.733496] [<ffffffff8105feca>] cpu_idle+0xba/0x130 >[ 49.733830] [<ffffffff81b2059f>] start_secondary+0x2b3/0x2bc > >Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dannyfeng@tencent.com> >Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> >Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> >Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >--- > fs/proc/generic.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >diff --git a/fs/proc/generic.c b/fs/proc/generic.c >index 7b3ae3c..e659a0f 100644 >--- a/fs/proc/generic.c >+++ b/fs/proc/generic.c >@@ -359,18 +359,18 @@ retry: > if (!ida_pre_get(&proc_inum_ida, GFP_KERNEL)) > return -ENOMEM; > >- spin_lock(&proc_inum_lock); >+ spin_lock_bh(&proc_inum_lock); > error = ida_get_new(&proc_inum_ida, &i); >- spin_unlock(&proc_inum_lock); >+ spin_unlock_bh(&proc_inum_lock); > if (error == -EAGAIN) > goto retry; > else if (error) > return error; > > if (i > UINT_MAX - PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST) { >- spin_lock(&proc_inum_lock); >+ spin_lock_bh(&proc_inum_lock); > ida_remove(&proc_inum_ida, i); >- spin_unlock(&proc_inum_lock); >+ spin_unlock_bh(&proc_inum_lock); > return -ENOSPC; > } > *inum = PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST + i; >@@ -379,9 +379,9 @@ retry: > > void proc_free_inum(unsigned int inum) > { >- spin_lock(&proc_inum_lock); >+ spin_lock_bh(&proc_inum_lock); > ida_remove(&proc_inum_ida, inum - PROC_DYNAMIC_FIRST); >- spin_unlock(&proc_inum_lock); >+ spin_unlock_bh(&proc_inum_lock); > } > >static void *proc_follow_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct nameidata >*nd)
| |