From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: sysfs_bin_mmap lockdep trace.
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:45:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131113184538.GA7269@redhat.com> (raw)
Al, is this one also known ? Also seen on v3.12-7033-g42a2d923cc34
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.12.0+ #2 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
trinity-child0/9004 is trying to acquire lock:
(&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8123c0cf>] sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
eady holding lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff8116b5ff>] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x6f/0xc0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}:
[<ffffffff810d7a23>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
[<ffffffff81175a5c>] might_fault+0x8c/0xb0
[<ffffffff812fa105>] scsi_cmd_ioctl+0x295/0x470
[<ffffffff812fa322>] scsi_cmd_blk_ioctl+0x42/0x50
[<ffffffff81502a61>] cdrom_ioctl+0x41/0x1050
[<ffffffff814d5baf>] sr_block_ioctl+0x6f/0xd0
[<ffffffff812f5fe4>] blkdev_ioctl+0x234/0x840
[<ffffffff811f6b47>] block_ioctl+0x47/0x50
[<ffffffff811cb4f0>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x300/0x520
[<ffffffff811cb791>] SyS_ioctl+0x81/0xa0
[<ffffffff8172e064>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
-> #2 (sr_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff810d7a23>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
[<ffffffff8171f277>] mutex_lock_nested+0x77/0x400
[<ffffffff814d6244>] sr_block_open+0x24/0x130
[<ffffffff811f7911>] __blkdev_get+0xd1/0x4c0
[<ffffffff811f7ee5>] blkdev_get+0x1e5/0x380
[<ffffffff811f813a>] blkdev_open+0x6a/0x90
[<ffffffff811b45f7>] do_dentry_open+0x1e7/0x340
[<ffffffff811b4860>] finish_open+0x40/0x50
[<ffffffff811c7274>] do_last+0xa34/0x1170
[<ffffffff811c7a6e>] path_openat+0xbe/0x6a0
[<ffffffff811c87ca>] do_filp_open+0x3a/0x90
[<ffffffff811b627e>] do_sys_open+0x12e/0x210
[<ffffffff811b637e>] SyS_open+0x1e/0x20
[<ffffffff8172e064>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
-> #1 (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff810d7a23>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
[<ffffffff8171f277>] mutex_lock_nested+0x77/0x400
[<ffffffff8112e03f>] sysfs_blk_trace_attr_show+0x5f/0x1f0
[<ffffffff814a86c0>] dev_attr_show+0x20/0x60
[<ffffffff8123c968>] sysfs_seq_show+0xc8/0x160
[<ffffffff811df6dc>] seq_read+0x16c/0x450
[<ffffffff811b6583>] do_loop_readv_writev+0x63/0x90
[<ffffffff811b7e9d>] do_readv_writev+0x20d/0x220
[<ffffffff811b7ee0>] vfs_readv+0x30/0x60
[<ffffffff811b7fc0>] SyS_readv+0x50/0xd0
[<ffffffff8172e064>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
-> #0 (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff810d7002>] __lock_acquire+0x1782/0x19f0
[<ffffffff810d7a23>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
[<ffffffff8171f277>] mutex_lock_nested+0x77/0x400
[<ffffffff8123c0cf>] sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
[<ffffffff81180695>] mmap_region+0x3e5/0x5d0
[<ffffffff81180bd7>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x357/0x3e0
[<ffffffff8116b620>] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x90/0xc0
[<ffffffff8117f125>] SyS_mmap_pgoff+0x1d5/0x270
[<ffffffff81007eb2>] SyS_mmap+0x22/0x30
[<ffffffff8172e064>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&of->mutex --> sr_mutex --> &mm->mmap_sem
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(sr_mutex);
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(&of->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by trinity-child0/9004:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff8116b5ff>] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x6f/0xc0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 9004 Comm: trinity-child0 Not tainted 3.12.0+ #2
ffffffff82501d30 ffff880093e3bbc0 ffffffff8171b3dc ffffffff825294d0
ffff880093e3bc00 ffffffff81717c8f ffff880093e3bc50 ffff88009ce00700
ffff88009ce00000 0000000000000001 0000000000000001 ffff88009ce00700
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8171b3dc>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x7a
[<ffffffff81717c8f>] print_circular_bug+0x200/0x20f
[<ffffffff810d7002>] __lock_acquire+0x1782/0x19f0
[<ffffffff810d7a23>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
[<ffffffff8123c0cf>] ? sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
[<ffffffff8123c0cf>] ? sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
[<ffffffff8171f277>] mutex_lock_nested+0x77/0x400
[<ffffffff8123c0cf>] ? sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
[<ffffffff8123c0cf>] ? sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
[<ffffffff8123c0cf>] sysfs_bin_mmap+0x4f/0x120
[<ffffffff81180695>] mmap_region+0x3e5/0x5d0
[<ffffffff81180bd7>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x357/0x3e0
[<ffffffff8116b620>] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x90/0xc0
[<ffffffff8117f125>] SyS_mmap_pgoff+0x1d5/0x270
[<ffffffff810109f5>] ? syscall_trace_enter+0x145/0x2a0
[<ffffffff81007eb2>] SyS_mmap+0x22/0x30
[<ffffffff8172e064>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
next reply other threads:[~2013-11-13 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-13 18:45 Dave Jones [this message]
2013-11-13 20:10 ` sysfs_bin_mmap lockdep trace Al Viro
2013-11-14 5:41 ` Tejun Heo
2013-11-15 1:19 ` Dave Jones
2013-11-17 2:17 ` [PATCH] sysfs: use a separate locking class for open files depending on mmap Tejun Heo
2013-11-17 3:21 ` Dave Jones
2013-11-17 3:29 ` Tejun Heo
2013-11-18 4:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-11-20 6:30 ` Tejun Heo
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=20131113184538.GA7269@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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.