Re: [bug] xfrm_state_lock: possible circular locking dependencydetected

[Ingo Molnar]

* Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
-
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/