Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932376Ab0FKIex (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:34:53 -0400
Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:46991 "EHLO kernel.dk"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755710Ab0FKIep (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:34:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4C11F524.4090702@fusionio.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:34:44 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "piotr@hosowicz.com" <piotr@hosowicz.com>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Divyesh Shah <dpshah@google.com>
Subject: Re: blkiocg_update_io_add_stats(): INFO: trying to register  non-static
  key
References: <4BF9EC69.5030709@example.com> <1274777422.5882.591.camel@twins>	 <20100601064120.GA3407@elte.hu> <20100601064726.GG1660@kernel.dk>	 <20100601065500.GA7876@elte.hu> <20100602111653.GA25662@elte.hu>	 <20100602130456.GP3564@kernel.dk> <1276240527.2077.1467.camel@twins>
In-Reply-To: <1276240527.2077.1467.camel@twins>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2413
Lines: 53

On 2010-06-11 09:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:04 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 02 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> btw., there's another warning triggered by the new blk-cgroups stats code:
>>>
>>> sda:INFO: trying to register non-static key.
>>> the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
>>> turning off the locking correctness validator.
>>> Pid: 81, comm: async/2 Not tainted 2.6.35-rc1-tip-01073-gd2f7698-dirty #6765
>>> Call Trace:
>>>  [<ffffffff81065d6d>] register_lock_class+0x15f/0x365
>>>  [<ffffffff8105c426>] ? sched_clock_local+0x1d/0x83
>>>  [<ffffffff8105c557>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xcb/0xd9
>>>  [<ffffffff81067184>] __lock_acquire+0x97/0x481
>>>  [<ffffffff810088d4>] ? native_sched_clock+0x37/0x6d
>>>  [<ffffffff81321b74>] ? blkiocg_update_io_add_stats+0x32/0x12e
>>>  [<ffffffff81067644>] lock_acquire+0xd6/0xfd
>>>  [<ffffffff81321b74>] ? blkiocg_update_io_add_stats+0x32/0x12e
>>>  [<ffffffff81850859>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x47/0x82
>>>  [<ffffffff81321b74>] ? blkiocg_update_io_add_stats+0x32/0x12e
>>>  [<ffffffff81321b74>] blkiocg_update_io_add_stats+0x32/0x12e
>>
>> So that's blkg->stats_lock - help me out, what is lockdep complaining
>> about? The lock is initialized, what kind of lockdep annotation magic do
>> we need to sprinkle on it?
> 
> It basically says its lock instance isn't properly initialised. Usually
> spin_lock_init() will set lock->dep_map->key, for static locks,
> initialised with __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED() ->key doesn't get set and we use
> the lock's address as key.
> 
> Now lockdep requires the key to be in static storage, so if you try to
> used __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED() on dynamically allocated locks (the most
> common form is using static forms like DEFINE_foo() on stack variables),
> things go bang.
> 
> That said, the block_cgroup.c code seems to use spin_lock_init() so it
> _should_ all work out. Use before init/after free perhaps?

Exactly, I did double check that. But yes, could be a bug where it's
used before being initialized, though it seems to do that when the
struct is allocated. So perhaps user-after-free indeed, but it happened
at boot.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/