Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state innet_rx_action

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:55:42 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 05:14:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> ...
> > > >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10326
> ...
> > No, it's not an irq_disable() thing, directly.
> > 
> > What lockdep is saying is that sky2_poll() is taking napi->poll_lock for
> > writing with softirqs enabled, but net_rx_action() takes the same lock from
> > within softirq context.
> > 
> > If sky2_poll() always takes napi->poll_lock under local_irq_disable() then
> > that would be a lockdep bug.
> 
> sky2_poll() doesn't take napi->poll_lock; this lock is taken by
> netpoll_poll() before calling sky2_poll(). And before this hardirqs
> are disabled in write_msg(). So, theoretically lockdep could be right
> if sky2_poll() would enable irqs after this. (If it were done in
> netpoll - lockdep should warn before or after sky2_poll() call.)
> But I really can't see any such possibility in sky2_poll().

I can't spot it from a five-minute read either.  gcc's autoinlining really
makes this sort of thing much harder than it used to be :(

Anyway, the accusation is that lockdep is busted, in that it doesn't realise that
local_irq_disable() blocks softirqs.

I bet the net code is wrong and we missed it ;)
--
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/