From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753385AbXKXH4S (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:56:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751330AbXKXH4H (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:56:07 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44959 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751429AbXKXH4F (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:56:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:55:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Herbert Xu Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Jones Subject: Re: [bug] xfrm_state_lock: possible circular locking dependency detected Message-ID: <20071124075519.GA9118@elte.hu> References: <20071123153851.GA26308@elte.hu> <20071124021814.GA24056@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071124021814.GA24056@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 04:38:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > DaveJ's Fedora 8 rpm for 2.6.24 works petty well, except for the > > neworking related lockdep assert attached below, which happened while > > starting up ipsec. Let me know if you need any more info - it's a pretty > > stock setup. > > Thanks for the report Ingo! > > This is indeed a regression caused by: > > commit 050f009e16f908932070313c1745d09dc69fd62b > Author: Herbert Xu > Date: Tue Oct 9 13:31:47 2007 -0700 > > [IPSEC]: Lock state when copying non-atomic fields to user-space > > For 2.6.24 I'm simply going to revert this change since that just puts > us back to the same state we've been for the last few years. > > For 2.6.25 I'll do a proper fix by making sure that every xfrm state > user obeys the rule that if x->lock is to be taken with > xfrm_state_lock then it must be done from within. ok, great. I cannot test the revert because i only run distro kernels on this box so i can only confirm that the bug is gone once your revert is upstream and DaveJ has built a new Fedora kernel for it (which is 1-2 days after the commit goes upstream). So consider it fixed once you do the revert and i'll re-report it if i see any similar assert on a kernel that has this commit reverted. Ingo