Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 20:39 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 30/05/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.17-rc5/2.6.17-rc5-mm1/
> >
> 
> I get this on 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 + hot fixes + Arjan's net/ipv4/igmp.c patch.
> 
> May 30 20:25:56 ltg01-fedora kernel:
> May 30 20:25:56 ltg01-fedora kernel:
> =====================================================
> May 30 20:25:56 ltg01-fedora kernel: [ BUG: possible circular locking
> deadlock detected! ]
> May 30 20:25:56 ltg01-fedora kernel:
> -----------------------------------------------------
> May 30 20:25:56 ltg01-fedora kernel: umount/2322 is trying to acquire lock:
> May 30 20:25:56 ltg01-fedora kernel:  (sb_security_lock){--..}, at:
> [<c01d6400>] selinux_sb_free_security+0x17/0x4e


ok so  selinux_complete_init() does
        spin_lock(&sb_security_lock);
next_sb:
        if (!list_empty(&superblock_security_head)) {
                struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec =
                                list_entry(superblock_security_head.next,
                                           struct superblock_security_struct,
                                           list);
                struct super_block *sb = sbsec->sb;
                spin_lock(&sb_lock);
                sb->s_count++;
                spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
                spin_unlock(&sb_security_lock);

nesting sb_lock inside sb_security_lock

while

put_super() takes the sb_lock, then calls __put_super() which calls 
selinux_sb_free_security which calls superblock_free_security() which takes sb_security_lock
which means the nesting is opposite.


textbook AB-BA deadlock
-
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/