Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>  to a softirq-unsafe lock:
>   (&newsk->sk_dst_lock){+-}, at: [<c048f385>] inet6_destroy_sock+0x25/0x100
>  ... which became softirq-unsafe at:
>  ... [<00000000>] 0x0

fyi, here is where sk_dst_lock became softirq-unsafe:

marked lock as {softirq-on}:
 (&sk->sk_dst_lock){--}, at: [<c04b45d3>] ip6_datagram_connect+0x3b3/0x520
softirq was enabled at: c0497738
hardirq was enabled at: c0102e27
 (&sk->sk_dst_lock){--}, at: [<c04b45d3>] ip6_datagram_connect+0x3b3/0x520
 [<c010432d>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
 [<c0104347>] dump_stack+0x17/0x20
 [<c0139243>] mark_lock+0x173/0x3a0
 [<c01399a5>] debug_lock_chain+0x535/0x1090
 [<c013a53d>] debug_lock_chain_spin+0x3d/0x60
 [<c0268542>] _raw_write_lock+0x32/0x1a0
 [<c04d48c8>] _write_lock+0x8/0x10
 [<c04b45d3>] ip6_datagram_connect+0x3b3/0x520
 [<c04805c7>] inet_dgram_connect+0x37/0x80
 [<c0436f0a>] sys_connect+0x5a/0x80
 [<c0437414>] sys_socketcall+0x94/0x260
 [<c0102df7>] sysenter_past_esp+0x54/0x8d

	Ingo
-
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/