Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep

[Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com>]

Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>> * Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
> Above this acquire/release sequence is the following comment:
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>                 /*
>                  * It is permissible to free the struct work_struct
>                  * from inside the function that is called from it,
>                  * this we need to take into account for lockdep too.
>                  * To avoid bogus "held lock freed" warnings as well
>                  * as problems when looking into work->lockdep_map,
>                  * make a copy and use that here.
>                  */
>                 struct lockdep_map lockdep_map = work->lockdep_map;
> #endif
> 
> Did something trigger this anyway?
> 
> Anything I could try, apart from more boots with slub_debug=F?

Please could you try which patch from the dm-crypt series cause this ?
(agk-dm-dm-crypt* names.)

I suspect agk-dm-dm-crypt-move-bio-submission-to-thread.patch because
there is one work struct used subsequently in two threads...
(io thread already started while crypt thread is processing lockdep_map
after calling f(work)...)

(btw these patches prepare dm-crypt for next patchset introducing 
async cryptoapi, so there should be no functional changes yet.)

Milan
--
mbroz@redhat.com


-
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/