[PATCH] Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking
From: Sergey Senozhatsky
Date: Thu Aug 04 2011 - 20:34:33 EST
Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669
Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx>
ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery()
introduced battery locking to sysfs_remove_battery(). That lead to a possible
deadlock warning:
[14818.477170] =======================================================
[14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668
[14818.477236] -------------------------------------------------------
[14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock:
[14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
[14818.477323]
[14818.477325] but task is already holding lock:
[14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery]
[14818.477395]
[14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[...]
[14818.479121] stack backtrace:
[14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668
[14818.479175] Call Trace:
[14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4
[14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b
[14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
[14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac
[14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
[14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec
[14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
[14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
[14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77
[14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14
[14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14
[14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c
[14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a
[14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27
[14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery]
[14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery]
[14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1
[14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89
[14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
[14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27
[14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5
[14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0
[14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45
[14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19
[14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f
[14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d
[14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c
[14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
I've changed `the marker' from `battery->bat.dev' to `battery->bat.name', so
the basic idea should remain the same, now we just can release battery->lock
more quicker, before device_remove_file() call.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/battery.c | 6 ++++--
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/battery.c b/drivers/acpi/battery.c
index 87c0a8d..398cbfb 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/battery.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/battery.c
@@ -574,15 +574,17 @@ static int sysfs_add_battery(struct acpi_battery *battery)
static void sysfs_remove_battery(struct acpi_battery *battery)
{
mutex_lock(&battery->lock);
- if (!battery->bat.dev) {
+ if (!battery->bat.name) {
mutex_unlock(&battery->lock);
return;
}
+ battery->bat.name = NULL;
+ mutex_unlock(&battery->lock);
+
device_remove_file(battery->bat.dev, &alarm_attr);
power_supply_unregister(&battery->bat);
battery->bat.dev = NULL;
- mutex_unlock(&battery->lock);
}
/*
--
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/