Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:59672 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751230AbYDDRoo (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:44:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:43:02 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Johannes Berg Cc: Miles Lane , Jiri Benc , linux-wireless , Jouni Malinen , netdev , ALSA development , Thomas Graf , YOSHIFUJI Hideaki , Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected (while using iw to debug a wireless issue) Message-Id: <20080404104302.7445e41f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (sfid-20080404_184449_274422_E4035A01) In-Reply-To: <1207323936.19189.58.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1207323936.19189.58.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:45:36 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:41 -0400, Miles Lane wrote: > > After collecting the wireshark log, I found this in my messages log: > > Below is a better version of the trace Miles sent me privately, but I > have no idea what would be causing it. I don't think it's related to > wireless. > > ___======================================================= > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 #15 > ------------------------------------------------------- > iw/9417 is trying to acquire lock: > (genl_mutex){--..}, at: [ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda] ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda > > but task is already holding lock: > (nlk->cb_mutex){--..}, at: [netlink_dump+0x39/0x22e] netlink_dump+0x39/0x22e > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (nlk->cb_mutex){--..}: > [__lock_acquire+0xa02/0xbaf] __lock_acquire+0xa02/0xbaf > [lock_acquire+0x76/0x9d] lock_acquire+0x76/0x9d > [snd_mixer_oss:mutex_lock_nested+0xd5/0x67b] mutex_lock_nested+0xd5/0x274 > [netlink_dump_start+0xbd/0x15a] netlink_dump_start+0xbd/0x15a > [genl_rcv_msg+0x9d/0x13a] genl_rcv_msg+0x9d/0x13a > [netlink_rcv_skb+0x30/0x75] netlink_rcv_skb+0x30/0x75 > [genl_rcv+0x1e/0x2e] genl_rcv+0x1e/0x2e > [cfg80211:netlink_unicast+0x1c1/0x1867] netlink_unicast+0x1c1/0x293 > [netlink_sendmsg+0x21f/0x22c] netlink_sendmsg+0x21f/0x22c > [sock_sendmsg+0xca/0xe1] sock_sendmsg+0xca/0xe1 > [sys_sendmsg+0x14d/0x1a8] sys_sendmsg+0x14d/0x1a8 > [sys_socketcall+0x163/0x17e] sys_socketcall+0x163/0x17e > [sysenter_past_esp+0x6d/0xc5] sysenter_past_esp+0x6d/0xc5 > [] 0xffffffff > -> #0 (genl_mutex){--..}: > [__lock_acquire+0x929/0xbaf] __lock_acquire+0x929/0xbaf > [lock_acquire+0x76/0x9d] lock_acquire+0x76/0x9d > [snd_mixer_oss:mutex_lock_nested+0xd5/0x67b] mutex_lock_nested+0xd5/0x274 > [ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda] ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda > [netlink_dump+0x51/0x22e] netlink_dump+0x51/0x22e > [netlink_recvmsg+0x156/0x203] netlink_recvmsg+0x156/0x203 > [sock_recvmsg+0xd1/0xe9] sock_recvmsg+0xd1/0xe9 > [sys_recvmsg+0xf2/0x17f] sys_recvmsg+0xf2/0x17f > [sys_socketcall+0x16f/0x17e] sys_socketcall+0x16f/0x17e > [sysenter_past_esp+0x6d/0xc5] sysenter_past_esp+0x6d/0xc5 > [] 0xffffffff > > other info that might help us debug this: > > 1 lock held by iw/9417: > #0: (nlk->cb_mutex){--..}, at: [netlink_dump+0x39/0x22e] netlink_dump+0x39/0x22e > > stack backtrace: > Pid: 9417, comm: iw Not tainted 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 #15 > [print_circular_bug_tail+0x5b/0x66] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5b/0x66 > [print_circular_bug_header+0xa5/0xb0] ? print_circular_bug_header+0xa5/0xb0 > [__lock_acquire+0x929/0xbaf] __lock_acquire+0x929/0xbaf > [lock_acquire+0x76/0x9d] lock_acquire+0x76/0x9d > [ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda] ? ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda > [snd_mixer_oss:mutex_lock_nested+0xd5/0x67b] mutex_lock_nested+0xd5/0x274 > [ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda] ? ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda > [ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda] ? ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda > [ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda] ctrl_dumpfamily+0x37/0xda > [netlink_dump+0x51/0x22e] netlink_dump+0x51/0x22e > [mac80211:kfree_skb+0x40/0x45] ? kfree_skb+0x40/0x45 > [netlink_recvmsg+0x156/0x203] netlink_recvmsg+0x156/0x203 > [sock_sendmsg+0xca/0xe1] ? sock_sendmsg+0xca/0xe1 > [sock_recvmsg+0xd1/0xe9] sock_recvmsg+0xd1/0xe9 > [] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x30 > [snd_pcm_oss:copy_from_user+0x3b/0x236] ? copy_from_user+0x3b/0x5e > [verify_iovec+0x40/0x70] ? verify_iovec+0x40/0x70 > [sys_recvmsg+0xf2/0x17f] sys_recvmsg+0xf2/0x17f > [snd_hda_intel:_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x56/0x6c] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x56/0x6c > [paravirt_get_lazy_mode+0xe/0x1b] ? paravirt_get_lazy_mode+0xe/0x1b > [crypto_algapi:kunmap_atomic+0x9e/0x2e8e] ? kunmap_atomic+0x9e/0xbb > [handle_mm_fault+0x7aa/0x7bb] ? handle_mm_fault+0x7aa/0x7bb > [sys_socketcall+0x16f/0x17e] sys_socketcall+0x16f/0x17e > [processor:trace_hardirqs_on+0xf0/0x5d38] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xf0/0x12c > [sysenter_past_esp+0x6d/0xc5] sysenter_past_esp+0x6d/0xc5 > Yes, that looks like a problem in the core netlink code. git-net contains several largeish changes to it..