From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
Cc: stable@kernel.org, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [stable] [2.6.38-rc5, patch] fix cfg80211_wext_siwfreq lock ordering...
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:02:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110222200222.GA11679@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik752Qyy9RTz4h_C=amyjm+EjmUzUc=TGt7S1EM@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:15:47AM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On 22 February 2011 00:25, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 00:11 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> >> I previously managed to reproduce a hang while scanning wireless
> >> channels (reproducible with airodump-ng hopping channels); subsequent
> >> lockdep instrumentation revealed a lock ordering issue [1].
> >>
> >> Without knowing the design intent, it looks like the locks should be
> >> taken in reverse order; please comment.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> --- [1]
> >
> > Yeah, looks this way, thanks.
> >
> > Acked-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
> >
> >> =======================================================
> >> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> >> 2.6.38-rc5-341cd #4
> >> -------------------------------------------------------
> >> airodump-ng/15445 is trying to acquire lock:
> >> (&rdev->devlist_mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816b1266>]
> >> cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
> >>
> >> but task is already holding lock:
> >> (&wdev->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816b125c>] cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xbc/0x100
> >>
> >> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >>
> >> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >>
> >> -> #1 (&wdev->mtx){+.+.+.}:
> >> [<ffffffff810a79d6>] lock_acquire+0xc6/0x280
> >> [<ffffffff816d6bce>] mutex_lock_nested+0x6e/0x4b0
> >> [<ffffffff81696080>] cfg80211_netdev_notifier_call+0x430/0x5f0
> >> [<ffffffff8109351b>] notifier_call_chain+0x8b/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff810935b1>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x20
> >> [<ffffffff81576d92>] call_netdevice_notifiers+0x32/0x60
> >> [<ffffffff815771a4>] __dev_notify_flags+0x34/0x80
> >> [<ffffffff81577230>] dev_change_flags+0x40/0x70
> >> [<ffffffff8158587c>] do_setlink+0x1fc/0x8d0
> >> [<ffffffff81586042>] rtnl_setlink+0xf2/0x140
> >> [<ffffffff81586923>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x163/0x270
> >> [<ffffffff8159d741>] netlink_rcv_skb+0xa1/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff815867b0>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x20/0x30
> >> [<ffffffff8159d39a>] netlink_unicast+0x2ba/0x300
> >> [<ffffffff8159dd57>] netlink_sendmsg+0x267/0x3e0
> >> [<ffffffff8155e364>] sock_sendmsg+0xe4/0x110
> >> [<ffffffff8155f3a3>] sys_sendmsg+0x253/0x3b0
> >> [<ffffffff81003192>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >>
> >> -> #0 (&rdev->devlist_mtx){+.+.+.}:
> >> [<ffffffff810a7222>] __lock_acquire+0x1622/0x1d10
> >> [<ffffffff810a79d6>] lock_acquire+0xc6/0x280
> >> [<ffffffff816d6bce>] mutex_lock_nested+0x6e/0x4b0
> >> [<ffffffff816b1266>] cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff816b2fad>] ioctl_standard_call+0x5d/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff816b3223>] T.808+0x163/0x170
> >> [<ffffffff816b326a>] wext_handle_ioctl+0x3a/0x90
> >> [<ffffffff815798d2>] dev_ioctl+0x6f2/0x830
> >> [<ffffffff8155cf3d>] sock_ioctl+0xfd/0x290
> >> [<ffffffff8117dffd>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x9d/0x590
> >> [<ffffffff8117e53a>] sys_ioctl+0x4a/0x80
> >> [<ffffffff81003192>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >>
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >>
> >> 2 locks held by airodump-ng/15445:
> >> #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81586782>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x20
> >> #1: (&wdev->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff816b125c>]
> >> cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xbc/0x100
> >>
> >> stack backtrace:
> >> Pid: 15445, comm: airodump-ng Not tainted 2.6.38-rc5-341cd #4
> >> Call Trace:
> >> [<ffffffff810a3f0a>] ? print_circular_bug+0xfa/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff810a7222>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1622/0x1d10
> >> [<ffffffff810a1f99>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x29/0xc0
> >> [<ffffffff810a79d6>] ? lock_acquire+0xc6/0x280
> >> [<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff810a31d7>] ? mark_held_locks+0x67/0x90
> >> [<ffffffff816d6bce>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x6e/0x4b0
> >> [<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff810a31d7>] ? mark_held_locks+0x67/0x90
> >> [<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff816b1266>] ? cfg80211_wext_siwfreq+0xc6/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff816b2fad>] ? ioctl_standard_call+0x5d/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff8157818b>] ? __dev_get_by_name+0x9b/0xc0
> >> [<ffffffff816b2f50>] ? ioctl_standard_call+0x0/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff816b3223>] ? T.808+0x163/0x170
> >> [<ffffffff8112ddf2>] ? might_fault+0x72/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff816b326a>] ? wext_handle_ioctl+0x3a/0x90
> >> [<ffffffff8112de3b>] ? might_fault+0xbb/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff815798d2>] ? dev_ioctl+0x6f2/0x830
> >> [<ffffffff810a1bae>] ? put_lock_stats+0xe/0x40
> >> [<ffffffff810a1c8c>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0xac/0x150
> >> [<ffffffff8155cf3d>] ? sock_ioctl+0xfd/0x290
> >> [<ffffffff8117dffd>] ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x9d/0x590
> >> [<ffffffff8116c8ff>] ? fget_light+0x1df/0x3c0
> >> [<ffffffff8117e53a>] ? sys_ioctl+0x4a/0x80
> >> [<ffffffff81003192>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >>
> >> --- [2]
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
> >> index 3e5dbd4..d112f03 100644
> >> --- a/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
> >> +++ b/net/wireless/wext-compat.c
> >> @@ -802,11 +802,11 @@ int cfg80211_wext_siwfreq(struct net_device *dev,
> >> return freq;
> >> if (freq == 0)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> - wdev_lock(wdev);
> >> mutex_lock(&rdev->devlist_mtx);
> >> + wdev_lock(wdev);
> >> err = cfg80211_set_freq(rdev, wdev, freq, NL80211_CHAN_NO_HT);
> >> - mutex_unlock(&rdev->devlist_mtx);
> >> wdev_unlock(wdev);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&rdev->devlist_mtx);
> >> return err;
> >> default:
> >> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Please consider for -stable. This patch resolves the lock ordering
> case my test exposed, and passes lockdep and extended testing.
Consider what? What is the git commit id of this patch in Linus's tree?
confused,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-22 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-21 16:11 [2.6.38-rc5, patch] fix cfg80211_wext_siwfreq lock ordering Daniel J Blueman
2011-02-21 16:25 ` Johannes Berg
2011-02-22 1:15 ` Daniel J Blueman
2011-02-22 20:02 ` Greg KH [this message]
2011-02-22 20:21 ` [stable] " John W. Linville
2011-02-22 20:43 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110222200222.GA11679@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=daniel.blueman@gmail.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.