Re: tty OOPS (Re: 2.6.21-rc5-mm2)

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:04:46PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> [unrelated maintainers removed, Alexey added]
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:45:24PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > just wanted to add that when analyzing the backtrace I found the comment
> > at drivers/char/vt.c/con_close() to be VERY suspicious...
> > (need to take tty_mutex to prevent concurrent thread tty access).
> > This might just be what happened here despite trying to protect against it.
>
> OK, can we assume that one of
>
> +protect-tty-drivers-list-with-tty_mutex.patch
> +tty-minor-merge-correction.patch
> +tty-in-tiocsctty-when-we-steal-a-tty-hang-it-up-fix.patch
>
> is responsible / not implemented fully?

#2 is just comment removal.

I may state the obvious, but __iget() in sysfs_drop_dentry() gets NULL
inode and you aren't failing on spin_lock one line above because of UP
without spinlock debugging.

-
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/