Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ...

[Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:17:28 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> wrote:
>
>
> > I'm getting tons of this, and X fails to start
> >
> > CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y
> > CONFIG_SYSVIPC_SYSCTL=y
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
> >
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:47
> > in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
> > no locks held by X/5879.
> > [<c012bcb1>] down_write+0x15/0x50
> > [<c01b53af>] do_shmat+0x235/0x3a0
> > [<c0106be2>] sys_ipc+0x146/0x263
> > [<c0102892>] sysenter_past_esp+0xa7/0xb5
> > [<c0102856>] sysenter_past_esp+0x6b/0xb5
> > =======================
>
>
> Here's a bug:
>
> --- a/ipc/util.c~ipc-integrate-ipc_checkid-into-ipc_lock-fix-2
> +++ a/ipc/util.c
> @@ -691,7 +691,7 @@ struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc_lock(struct ip
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  	}
> -
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  	return out;
>  }
>  

Andrew,

Actually the rcu_read_lock is released in ipc_unlock(). So I think we 
shouldn't add an rcu_read_unlock() before leaving ipc_lock().
This is a part that has not changed since the ref code.

I'm looking also on my side.

Regards,
Nadia

-
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/