From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: packet_sendmsg_spkt sleeping from invalid context Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:52:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20091214205231.GB5037@nowhere> References: <20091214175211.GA5102@nowhere> <4B2690E7.4030303@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "David S. Miller" , Neil Horman , Netdev , LKML To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B2690E7.4030303@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le 14/12/2009 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker a =E9crit : > > Hi, > >=20 > > I don't know if it has been reported already. > > I get the following warning on boot, with latest upstream tree: > >=20 > > [ 32.776502] sched: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid co= ntext at mm/slab.c:3032 > > [ 32.802173] sched: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 3555= , name: dhclient3 > > [ 32.821141] 1 lock held by dhclient3/3555: > > [ 32.821147] #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+.+}, at: [] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2c0 > > [ 32.821174] Pid: 3555, comm: dhclient3 Tainted: G W 2.6.= 32-tip+ #134 > > [ 32.821181] Call Trace: > > [ 32.821194] [] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x13= /0x30 > > [ 32.821207] [] __might_sleep+0x118/0x140 > > [ 32.821219] [] kmem_cache_alloc+0x173/0x190 > > [ 32.821231] [] __alloc_skb+0x49/0x170 > > [ 32.821241] [] sock_wmalloc+0x38/0x80 > > [ 32.821250] [] packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x12b/0x2c= 0 > > [ 32.821260] [] ? packet_sendmsg_spkt+0x7d/0x2= c0 > > [ 32.821272] [] sock_sendmsg+0x127/0x140 > > [ 32.821285] [] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0= /0x40 > > [ 32.821297] [] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0 > > [ 32.821306] [] ? might_fault+0x7b/0xd0 > > [ 32.821318] [] ? move_addr_to_kernel+0x6a/0x7= 0 > > [ 32.821328] [] sys_sendto+0xef/0x120 > > [ 32.821340] [] ? mntput_no_expire+0x29/0x110 > > [ 32.821355] [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > >=20 >=20 > Thanks for the report Frederic. >=20 > We could partly revert the original commit, but as we wanted to avoid= touching=20 > device refcount, and af_packet might be the only real abuser, we coul= d > try following patch instead. >=20 > Thanks I also wonder. Are you using PREEMPT_RCU ? That may explain why you haven't seen this issue because might_sleep() doesn't see you are in a rcu read locked section as preemption is not disabled, but it is illegal to voluntarily sleep in such area (although it's fine with preempt rcu) as doing so with non-prempt RCU config would barf. I'm trying a patch to handle that.