Re: [PATCH] lockdep: fix sk->sk_callback_lock locking

[Jarek Poplawski]

On 29-11-2006 08:49, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> =========================================================
>> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.19-rc6 #4
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
>> (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}, at: [<c0268a7f>] sock_def_error_report+0x1f/0x90
>> but this lock was taken by another, soft-irq-safe lock in the past:
>> (slock-AF_INET){-+..}
>>
>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> 
> I think this is bogus.  The slock is not a standard lock.  When we
> hold it in process context we don't actually hold the spin lock part
> of it.  However, it does prevent the softirq path from running in
> critical sections which also prevents any attempt to grab the
> callback lock from softirq context.
> 
> If you still think there is a problem, please show an actual scenario
> where it dead locks.

It would be nice to have a look at other parts of stack
backtraces probably with softirq part, which took that
lock: sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}

Jarek P. 
-
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/