Vegard Nossum wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM, jay kumar <jaykumarks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> While testing 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820 , i observed this "BUG:bad >> unlock balance detected" during boot time >> >> commit 765d4840cc9cca98c0cc4ff4764608780c3265f6 >> Author: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed Aug 20 18:59:47 2008 +1000 >> >> >> Bug info: >> >> [ 0.140173] ===================================== >> [ 0.145977] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ] >> [ 0.145977] ------------------------------------- >> [ 0.145977] khelper/12 is trying to release lock (&p->cred_exec_mutex) at: >> [ 0.146977] [<c05c624f>] mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf >> [ 0.146977] but there are no more locks to release! >> [ 0.146977] >> [ 0.146977] other info that might help us debug this: >> [ 0.146977] no locks held by khelper/12. >> [ 0.146977] >> [ 0.146977] stack backtrace: >> [ 0.146977] Pid: 12, comm: khelper Not tainted 2.6.27-rc3-next-20080820 #13 >> [ 0.146977] [<c05c624f>] ? mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf >> [ 0.146977] [<c0242944>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xa5/0xb2 >> [ 0.146977] [<c05c624f>] ? mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf >> [ 0.146977] [<c0245cd7>] lock_release+0x8f/0x186 >> [ 0.146977] [<c05c61f0>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x9b/0xed >> [ 0.146977] [<c05c624f>] mutex_unlock+0xd/0xf >> [ 0.146977] [<c029506f>] free_bprm+0x24/0x39 >> [ 0.146977] [<c029644e>] do_execve+0x1e5/0x1fb >> [ 0.146977] [<c0202156>] sys_execve+0x2e/0x51 >> [ 0.146977] [<c0203a72>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb >> [ 0.146977] [<c0206654>] ? kernel_execve+0x1c/0x21 >> [ 0.146977] [<c023383c>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x0/0x129 >> [ 0.146977] [<c023395b>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x11f/0x129 >> [ 0.146977] [<c023383c>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x0/0x129 >> [ 0.146977] [<c020466b>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 >> [ 0.146977] ======================= > > (config clipped) > > Hi, > > Thanks for the report. The error comes from > > commit d9a939fb80ef390b78b3c801f668bd1e35ebc970 > Author: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Aug 7 20:02:20 2008 +1000 > > CRED: Make execve() take advantage of copy-on-write credentials > > (Added to Cc. I guess it's also nice to Cc linux-next on errors in -next code.) > > I couldn't reproduce your original failure, but I've attempted to fix > it by reordering the mutex unlock and bprm free and removing the > extraneous unlock (see attached patch; it boots for me without > errors). > > > Vegard > Hi, Thanks, the patch fixes the "bad unlock balance" warning I was hitting with the next-20080821 patchset. Tested-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Thanks & Regards, Kamalesh Babulal, Linux Technology Center, IBM, ISTL. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
