On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 17:59 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> Wow. Nearly 400 lines of debug spew, from a simple 'ifup eth1'.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready
> eth1: New link status: Disconnected (0002)
>
> ======================================================
> [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ]
> ------------------------------------------------------
> events/0/5 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
> (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family){-.--}, at: [<ffffffff802136b1>]
> sock_def_readable+0x19/0x6f
>
> and this task is already holding:
> (&priv->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff8824f70e>] orinoco_send_wevents+0x28/0x8b
> [orinoco]
> which would create a new lock dependency:
> (&priv->lock){++..} -> (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family){-.--}
> [<ffffffff80267948>] _read_lock+0x28/0x34
> [<ffffffff802136b1>] sock_def_readable+0x19/0x6f
> [<ffffffff80259ad7>] netlink_broadcast+0x222/0x2e2
> [<ffffffff804287eb>] wireless_send_event+0x300/0x317
> [<ffffffff8824f732>] :orinoco:orinoco_send_wevents+0x4c/0x8b
> [<ffffffff8024f99c>] run_workqueue+0xa8/0xfb
> [<ffffffff8024c180>] worker_thread+0xef/0x122
> [<ffffffff80235437>] kthread+0x100/0x136
> [<ffffffff802613de>] child_rip+0x8/0x12
this is another one of those nasty buggers;
Lock A = the sk->sk_callback_lock
Lock B = priv->lock in the driver
Lock A is only BH safe
Lock B is hardirq safe and used in the hardirq
Cpu 0 cpu 1
user closes the netlink socket
takes lock B in orinoco_send_events
takes lock A in user context in netlink_release() (for
write)
interrupt happens
takes lock B in hardirq handler (spins)
calls netlink_broadcast
which takes lock A for read (spins)
and you have a nice classical AB-BA deadlock
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
