On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I've got the following BUG on Asus L5D (x86-64) with the 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 kernel:
>
> BUG: rwlock recursion on CPU#0, nscd/3668, ffffffff8817d4a0
>
> Call Trace:<ffffffff80241ca9>{add_preempt_count+105} <ffffffff80241682>{rwlock_bug+114}
> <ffffffff8024179e>{_raw_write_lock+62} <ffffffff80350f48>{_write_lock_bh+40}
> <ffffffff88171824>{:ip_conntrack:destroy_conntrack+196}
> <ffffffff88170435>{:ip_conntrack:__ip_ct_event_cache_init+165}
> <ffffffff88170549>{:ip_conntrack:ip_ct_refresh_acct+249}
> <ffffffff88173c4f>{:ip_conntrack:udp_packet+47} <ffffffff88172143>{:ip_conntrack:ip_conntrack_in+1059}
> <ffffffff8816fb4c>{:ip_conntrack:ip_conntrack_local+76}
> <ffffffff802fe7ec>{nf_iterate+92} <ffffffff80311d90>{dst_output+0}
> <ffffffff802ff3de>{nf_hook_slow+142} <ffffffff80311d90>{dst_output+0}
> <ffffffff803123bf>{ip_push_pending_frames+895} <ffffffff802eade9>{lock_sock+201}
> <ffffffff8032e72e>{udp_push_pending_frames+574} <ffffffff8032ffc7>{udp_sendmsg+1703}
> <ffffffff8013874e>{current_fs_time+78} <ffffffff8015c03c>{file_read_actor+60}
> <ffffffff80199b6c>{update_atime+76} <ffffffff8015e8fa>{do_generic_mapping_read+1194}
> <ffffffff80335946>{inet_sendmsg+86} <ffffffff802e7dff>{sock_sendmsg+271}
> <ffffffff80241ca9>{add_preempt_count+105} <ffffffff8016153e>{free_hot_cold_page+270}
> <ffffffff801615bb>{free_hot_page+11} <ffffffff80241ca9>{add_preempt_count+105}
> <ffffffff8014a670>{autoremove_wake_function+0} <ffffffff802e846c>{sockfd_lookup+28}
> <ffffffff802e9c64>{sys_sendto+260} <ffffffff80193003>{do_sys_poll+851}
> <ffffffff80193de0>{__pollwait+0} <ffffffff8010eb3e>{system_call+126}
>
> ---------------------------
> | preempt count: 00000303 ]
> | 3 level deep critical section nesting:
> ----------------------------------------
> .. [<ffffffff802ff385>] .... nf_hook_slow+0x35/0x160
> .....[<ffffffff803123bf>] .. ( <= ip_push_pending_frames+0x37f/0x490)
> .. [<ffffffff80350f40>] .... _write_lock_bh+0x20/0x30
> .....[<ffffffff88170500>] .. ( <= ip_ct_refresh_acct+0xb0/0x160 [ip_conntrack])
> .. [<ffffffff80350f40>] .... _write_lock_bh+0x20/0x30
> .....[<ffffffff88171824>] .. ( <= destroy_conntrack+0xc4/0x180 [ip_conntrack])
Is the following patch correct? ip_conntrack_event_cache should never be
called with ip_conntrack_lock held and ct_add_counters does not need to be
called with ip_conntrack_lock held.
Index: linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvsroot/linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
diff -u -p -B -r1.1.1.1 ip_conntrack_core.c
--- linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c 7 Aug 2005 21:38:40 -0000 1.1.1.1
+++ linux-2.6.13-rc5-mm1/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_core.c 15 Aug 2005 02:09:23 -0000
@@ -1139,15 +1139,20 @@ void ip_ct_refresh_acct(struct ip_conntr
ct->timeout.expires = extra_jiffies;
ct_add_counters(ct, ctinfo, skb);
} else {
+ int do_event_cache = 0;
+
write_lock_bh(&ip_conntrack_lock);
/* Need del_timer for race avoidance (may already be dying). */
if (del_timer(&ct->timeout)) {
ct->timeout.expires = jiffies + extra_jiffies;
add_timer(&ct->timeout);
- ip_conntrack_event_cache(IPCT_REFRESH, skb);
+ do_event_cache = 1;
}
- ct_add_counters(ct, ctinfo, skb);
write_unlock_bh(&ip_conntrack_lock);
+
+ if (do_event_cache)
+ ip_conntrack_event_cache(IPCT_REFRESH, skb);
+ ct_add_counters(ct, ctinfo, skb);
}
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |