Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-R} usage.

[Herbert Xu]

Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'd say you hit a networking locking bug and then when trying to report
> that bug, lockdep crashed.
> 
> The networking bug looks to be around sock_i_ino()'s taking of
> sk_callback_lock with softirq's enabled.  Perhaps this will fix it.
> 
> diff -puN net/core/sock.c~a net/core/sock.c
> --- a/net/core/sock.c~a
> +++ a/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -1115,9 +1115,9 @@ int sock_i_uid(struct sock *sk)
> {
>        int uid;
> 
> -       read_lock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> +       read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
>        uid = sk->sk_socket ? SOCK_INODE(sk->sk_socket)->i_uid : 0;
> -       read_unlock(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
> +       read_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);

The callback lock is never taken for writing in BH context so
this shouldn't be needed.

Let's fix the lockdep checker first and then decide what's broken
in networking, OK?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/