From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [Bluetooth] recursive locking in l2cap_sock_accept/bt_accept_dequeue Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:18:26 +0200 Message-ID: <1158495506.6665.0.camel@localhost> References: <20060917113646.GA27178@ee.oulu.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from coyote.holtmann.net ([217.160.111.169]:17062 "EHLO mail.holtmann.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932253AbWIQMSM (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:18:12 -0400 To: Pekka Pietikainen In-Reply-To: <20060917113646.GA27178@ee.oulu.fi> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Pekka, > Got this from a 2.6.18rc7-based fedora-devel kernel: > > ============================================= > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > 2.6.17-1.2647.fc6 #1 > --------------------------------------------- > sdpd/4955 is trying to acquire lock: > (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){--..}, at: [] bt_accept_dequeue+0x26/0xc6 [bluetooth] > > but task is already holding lock: > (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){--..}, at: [] l2cap_sock_accept+0x41/0x11e [l2cap] > > other info that might help us debug this: > 1 lock held by sdpd/4955: > #0: (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){--..}, at: [] l2cap_sock_accept+0x41/0x11e [l2cap] > > stack backtrace: > [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x58/0x171 > [] show_trace+0xd/0x10 > [] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b > [] __lock_acquire+0x778/0x99c > [] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6d > [] lock_sock+0xac/0xbc > [] bt_accept_dequeue+0x26/0xc6 [bluetooth] > [] l2cap_sock_accept+0xe2/0x11e [l2cap] > [] sys_accept+0xd8/0x179 > [] sys_socketcall+0xa7/0x186 > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb > DWARF2 unwinder stuck at syscall_call+0x7/0xb > Leftover inexact backtrace: > [] show_trace+0xd/0x10 > [] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b > [] __lock_acquire+0x778/0x99c > [] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6d > [] lock_sock+0xac/0xbc > [] bt_accept_dequeue+0x26/0xc6 [bluetooth] > [] l2cap_sock_accept+0xe2/0x11e [l2cap] > [] sys_accept+0xd8/0x179 > [] sys_socketcall+0xa7/0x186 > [] syscall_call+0x7/0xb what where you doing when this happened? Regards Marcel