From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Subject: mq: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:59:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <501D0093.2090108@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest, using latest -next kernel, I've stumbled on the dump below.
I think this is the result of commit 765927b2 ("switch dentry_open() to struct path, make it grab references itself").
[ 62.090519] ======================================================
[ 62.091016] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 62.091016] 3.6.0-rc1-next-20120803-sasha #544 Tainted: G W
[ 62.091016] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 62.091016] trinity-child0/6077 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 62.091016] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8127c074>] vfs_unlink+0x54/0x100
[ 62.091016]
[ 62.091016] but task is already holding lock:
sb_writers#8){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff812900bf>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 62.097920]
-> #1 (sb_writers#8){.+.+.+}:
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117b58e>] validate_chain+0x69e/0x790
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117baa3>] __lock_acquire+0x423/0x4c0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117bcca>] lock_acquire+0x18a/0x1e0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff81271282>] __sb_start_write+0x192/0x1f0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff812900bf>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff818de4f8>] do_create+0xe8/0x160
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff818de79b>] sys_mq_open+0x1ab/0x2a0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83749379>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 62.097920]
-> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}:
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117ab3f>] check_prev_add+0x11f/0x4d0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117b58e>] validate_chain+0x69e/0x790
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117baa3>] __lock_acquire+0x423/0x4c0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117bcca>] lock_acquire+0x18a/0x1e0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83744db0>] __mutex_lock_common+0x60/0x590
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83745410>] mutex_lock_nested+0x40/0x50
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8127c074>] vfs_unlink+0x54/0x100
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff818de3ab>] sys_mq_unlink+0xfb/0x160
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83749379>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] CPU0 CPU1
[ 62.097920] ---- ----
[ 62.097920] lock(sb_writers#8);
[ 62.097920] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
[ 62.097920] lock(sb_writers#8);
[ 62.097920] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] 2 locks held by trinity-child0/6077:
[ 62.097920] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#13/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff818de31f>] sys_mq_unlink+0x6f/0x160
[ 62.097920] #1: (sb_writers#8){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff812900bf>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
[ 62.097920]
[ 62.097920] stack backtrace:
[ 62.097920] Pid: 6077, comm: trinity-child0 Tainted: G W 3.6.0-rc1-next-20120803-sasha #544
[ 62.097920] Call Trace:
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff81178b25>] print_circular_bug+0x105/0x120
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117ab3f>] check_prev_add+0x11f/0x4d0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117b58e>] validate_chain+0x69e/0x790
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8114ed58>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x108/0x120
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117baa3>] __lock_acquire+0x423/0x4c0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8117bcca>] lock_acquire+0x18a/0x1e0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8127c074>] ? vfs_unlink+0x54/0x100
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83744db0>] __mutex_lock_common+0x60/0x590
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8127c074>] ? vfs_unlink+0x54/0x100
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff81271296>] ? __sb_start_write+0x1a6/0x1f0
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8127b2ad>] ? generic_permission+0x2d/0x140
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8127c074>] ? vfs_unlink+0x54/0x100
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83745410>] mutex_lock_nested+0x40/0x50
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff8127c074>] vfs_unlink+0x54/0x100
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff818de3ab>] sys_mq_unlink+0xfb/0x160
[ 62.097920] [<ffffffff83749379>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
next reply other threads:[~2012-08-04 10:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-04 10:59 Sasha Levin [this message]
2012-08-05 17:08 ` mq: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected Fengguang Wu
2012-08-07 5:04 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-07 6:39 ` Al Viro
2012-08-08 7:17 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-08 7:54 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-14 22:09 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-14 22:13 ` Al Viro
2012-08-14 22:29 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-06 6:34 ` Al Viro
2012-08-07 14:54 ` Sasha Levin
2012-08-08 8:50 ` Fengguang Wu
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=501D0093.2090108@gmail.com \
--to=levinsasha928@gmail.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.