The patch titled
bfs: fix Lockdep warning
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
bfs-lockdep-warning.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
The current -mm tree may be found at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: bfs: fix Lockdep warning
From: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@xxxxxx>
[ 2585.162442] =============================================
[ 2585.162639] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 2585.162736] 2.6.27-rc5-00283-g70bb089 #68
[ 2585.162822] ---------------------------------------------
[ 2585.162992] touch/6855 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 2585.163014] (&info->bfs_lock){--..}, at: [<c02262f5>]
bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[ 2585.163014]
[ 2585.163014] but task is already holding lock:
[ 2585.163014] (&info->bfs_lock){--..}, at: [<c0226c00>]
bfs_create+0x45/0x187
[ 2585.163014]
[ 2585.163014] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 2585.163014] 2 locks held by touch/6855:
[ 2585.163014] #0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5){--..}, at: [<c018ad13>]
do_filp_open+0x10b/0x62f
[ 2585.163014] #1: (&info->bfs_lock){--..}, at: [<c0226c00>]
bfs_create+0x45/0x187
[ 2585.163014]
[ 2585.163014] stack backtrace:
[ 2585.163014] Pid: 6855, comm: touch Not tainted
2.6.27-rc5-00283-g70bb089 #68
[ 2585.163014] [<c013e769>] validate_chain+0x458/0x9f4
[ 2585.163014] [<c013bece>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
[ 2585.163014] [<c013f36b>] __lock_acquire+0x666/0x6e0
[ 2585.163014] [<c013f440>] lock_acquire+0x5b/0x77
[ 2585.163014] [<c02262f5>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[ 2585.163014] [<c06aab74>] mutex_lock_nested+0xbc/0x234
[ 2585.163014] [<c02262f5>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[ 2585.163014] [<c02262f5>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[ 2585.163014] [<c02262f5>] bfs_delete_inode+0x9e/0x18c
[ 2585.163014] [<c0226257>] ? bfs_delete_inode+0x0/0x18c
[ 2585.163014] [<c01925e1>] generic_delete_inode+0x94/0xfe
[ 2585.163014] [<c019265d>] generic_drop_inode+0x12/0x12f
[ 2585.163014] [<c0191b7e>] iput+0x4b/0x4e
[ 2585.163014] [<c0226d1e>] bfs_create+0x163/0x187
[ 2585.163014] [<c0188b42>] vfs_create+0xa6/0x114
[ 2585.163014] [<c018adb5>] do_filp_open+0x1ad/0x62f
[ 2585.163014] [<c0107cdc>] ? native_sched_clock+0x82/0x96
[ 2585.163014] [<c06ac309>] ? _spin_unlock+0x27/0x3c
[ 2585.163014] [<c019379e>] ? alloc_fd+0xbf/0xc9
[ 2585.163014] [<c06ae2f4>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9d/0xab
[ 2585.163014] [<c019379e>] ? alloc_fd+0xbf/0xc9
[ 2585.163014] [<c0180391>] do_sys_open+0x42/0xb8
[ 2585.163014] [<c041d564>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0xc/0x10
[ 2585.163014] [<c0180449>] sys_open+0x1e/0x26
[ 2585.163014] [<c01038bd>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
[ 2585.163014] =======================
The problem is that we don't unlock the bfs->lock mutex before calling
iput (we do in the other cases).
Signed-off-by: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@xxxxxx>
Cc: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/bfs/dir.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN fs/bfs/dir.c~bfs-lockdep-warning fs/bfs/dir.c
--- a/fs/bfs/dir.c~bfs-lockdep-warning
+++ a/fs/bfs/dir.c
@@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ static int bfs_create(struct inode *dir,
inode->i_ino);
if (err) {
inode_dec_link_count(inode);
- iput(inode);
mutex_unlock(&info->bfs_lock);
+ iput(inode);
return err;
}
mutex_unlock(&info->bfs_lock);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from snakebyte@xxxxxx are
origin.patch
linux-next.patch
hfsplus-fix-buffer-overflow-with-a-corrupted-image.patch
hfsplus-check-read_mapping_page-return-value.patch
hfsplus-fix-another-bug-when-reading-a-corrupted-image.patch
hfs-fix-namelength-memory-corruption.patch
hfsplus-check-hfs_bnode_find-return-value.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
