diff mbox

Next April 24 : BUG: lock held at task exit time!

Message ID Pine.LNX.4.64.0904241249180.20196@blonde.anvils (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Hugh Dickins April 24, 2009, 11:55 a.m. UTC 
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:25:41 +0530 Sachin Sant <sachinp@in.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > While booting today's next tree on a powerpc box [ power 6 blade]
> > observed the following :
> > 
> > khelper used greatest stack depth: 10176 bytes left
> > 
> > =====================================
> > [ BUG: lock held at task exit time! ]
> > -------------------------------------
> > khelper/21 is exiting with locks still held!
> > 2 locks held by khelper/21:
> >  #0:  (rcu_read_lock){.+.+.+}, at: [<c0000000001382fc>] 
> > .check_unsafe_exec+0x44/0x148
> >  #1:  (rcu_read_lock){.+.+.+}, at: [<c000000000138368>] 
> > .check_unsafe_exec+0xb0/0x148
> > 
> > stack backtrace:
> > Call Trace:
> > [c000000044483cf0] [c000000000011a54] .show_stack+0x6c/0x16c (unreliable)
> > [c000000044483da0] [c00000000009ae14] .debug_check_no_locks_held+0x98/0xb4
> > [c000000044483e20] [c000000000073b1c] .do_exit+0x758/0x7b0
> > [c000000044483f00] [c0000000000853d8] .____call_usermodehelper+0x170/0x174
> > [c000000044483f90] [c00000000002bd8c] .kernel_thread+0x54/0x70
> > net_namespace: 2000 bytes
> > 
> > Complete dmesg attached. Let me know if you need any other info. I will 
> > try yesterday's next
> > tree to check if this problem can be recreated.
> 
> Almost certainly commit 874a9e18f25c86dbc199ad32ddd9ca44d25290e8
> ("check_unsafe_exec: s/lock_task_sighand/rcu_read_lock/") which has a
> typo (two locks instead of lock/unlock) as pointed out by Hugh Dickins
> (<Pine.LNX.4.64.0904240526080.15735@blonde.anvils> on LKML).

Indeed, thanks for the headsup Stephen.  My own config gives, not
Sachin's message (or not still visibly on screen anyway), but an
outright panic.  Shame that leaked out into the big world, we'd
all have preferred a quiet fixup!  Here's a patch, which I'll
also send as reply to the relevant thread.

[PATCH] check_unsafe_exec: rcu_read_unlock

Fix typo in previous commit: second rcu_read_lock should be rcu_read_unlock.

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
---

 fs/exec.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Al Viro April 24, 2009, 2:04 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:55:44PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:

> Indeed, thanks for the headsup Stephen.  My own config gives, not
> Sachin's message (or not still visibly on screen anyway), but an
> outright panic.  Shame that leaked out into the big world, we'd
> all have preferred a quiet fixup!  Here's a patch, which I'll
> also send as reply to the relevant thread.

Applied, will fold on reorder (since Ingo is asking for what will amount
to reorder anyway).
Stephen Rothwell April 24, 2009, 2:11 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Al,

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:04:45 +0100 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Applied, will fold on reorder (since Ingo is asking for what will amount
> to reorder anyway).

Thanks.
diff mbox

Patch

--- 2.6.30-rc3-next-20090424/fs/exec.c	2009-04-24 12:23:43.000000000 +0100
+++ linux/fs/exec.c	2009-04-24 12:26:10.000000000 +0100
@@ -1043,7 +1043,7 @@  int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binpr
 		if (t->fs == p->fs)
 			n_fs++;
 	}
-	rcu_read_lock();
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 
 	if (p->fs->users > n_fs) {
 		bprm->unsafe |= LSM_UNSAFE_SHARE;