Re: [PATCH][AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
Applied on 2.6.24.2 and up without any problems/warnings since 12 hours.
Thanks,
Jann
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jarek Poplawski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2008 13:43
An: David Miller
Cc: Jann Traschewski; Bernard Pidoux F6BVP; Ralf Baechle
DL5RB; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Betreff: [PATCH][AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
Subject: [AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
=
[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
2.6.24-dg8ngn-p02 #1
-
inconsistent {softirq-on-W} - {in-softirq-R} usage.
linuxnet/3046 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes:
(ax25_route_lock){--.+}, at: [f8a0cfb7] ax25_get_route+0x18/0xb7
[ax25] {softirq-on-W} state was registered at:
...
This lockdep report shows that ax25_route_lock is taken for
reading in softirq context, and for writing in process
context with BHs enabled.
So, to make this safe, all write_locks in ax25_route.c are
changed to _bh versions.
Reported-by: Jann Traschewski [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -Nurp 2.6.24-mm1-/net/ax25/ax25_route.c
2.6.24-mm1+/net/ax25/ax25_route.c
--- 2.6.24-mm1-/net/ax25/ax25_route.c 2008-02-05
07:45:38.0 +
+++ 2.6.24-mm1+/net/ax25/ax25_route.c 2008-02-11
11:58:47.0 +
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ void ax25_rt_device_down(struct net_devi {
ax25_route *s, *t, *ax25_rt;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
s = ax25_rt;
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void ax25_rt_device_down(struct net_devi
}
}
}
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
}
static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(struct
ax25_routes_struct *route) @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int
__must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
if (route-digi_count AX25_MAX_DIGIS)
return -EINVAL;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
ax25_rt-digipeat = NULL;
if (route-digi_count != 0) {
if ((ax25_rt-digipeat =
kmalloc(sizeof(ax25_digi), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+
write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return -ENOMEM;
}
ax25_rt-digipeat-lastrepeat =
-1; @@ -102,14 +102,14 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
ax25_rt-digipeat-calls[i]= route-digi_addr[i];
}
}
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return 0;
}
ax25_rt = ax25_rt-next;
}
if ((ax25_rt = kmalloc(sizeof(ax25_route), GFP_ATOMIC))
== NULL) {
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return -ENOMEM;
}
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
ax25_rt-ip_mode = ' ';
if (route-digi_count != 0) {
if ((ax25_rt-digipeat =
kmalloc(sizeof(ax25_digi), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
kfree(ax25_rt);
return -ENOMEM;
}
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
}
ax25_rt-next = ax25_route_list;
ax25_route_list = ax25_rt;
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return 0;
}
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_del(struct ax25_route
if ((ax25_dev = ax25_addr_ax25dev(route-port_addr)) == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_del(struct ax25_route
}
}
}
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return 0;
}
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_opt(struct ax25_route
if ((ax25_dev =
ax25_addr_ax25dev(rt_option-port_addr)) == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_opt
Re: [PATCH][AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:43:26AM +0100, Jann Traschewski wrote: Applied on 2.6.24.2 and up without any problems/warnings since 12 hours. Thanks, Jann Thanks Jann, too! BTW, I hope maybe until tomorrow I'll figure out something about those earlier two AX25 testing patches. Regards, Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH][AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:42:51 +
[AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
=
[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
2.6.24-dg8ngn-p02 #1
-
inconsistent {softirq-on-W} - {in-softirq-R} usage.
linuxnet/3046 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes:
(ax25_route_lock){--.+}, at: [f8a0cfb7] ax25_get_route+0x18/0xb7 [ax25]
{softirq-on-W} state was registered at:
...
This lockdep report shows that ax25_route_lock is taken for reading in
softirq context, and for writing in process context with BHs enabled.
So, to make this safe, all write_locks in ax25_route.c are changed to
_bh versions.
Reported-by: Jann Traschewski [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied, thanks a lot Jarek.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH][AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
Subject: [AX25] ax25_route: make ax25_route_lock BH safe
=
[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
2.6.24-dg8ngn-p02 #1
-
inconsistent {softirq-on-W} - {in-softirq-R} usage.
linuxnet/3046 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes:
(ax25_route_lock){--.+}, at: [f8a0cfb7] ax25_get_route+0x18/0xb7 [ax25]
{softirq-on-W} state was registered at:
...
This lockdep report shows that ax25_route_lock is taken for reading in
softirq context, and for writing in process context with BHs enabled.
So, to make this safe, all write_locks in ax25_route.c are changed to
_bh versions.
Reported-by: Jann Traschewski [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -Nurp 2.6.24-mm1-/net/ax25/ax25_route.c 2.6.24-mm1+/net/ax25/ax25_route.c
--- 2.6.24-mm1-/net/ax25/ax25_route.c 2008-02-05 07:45:38.0 +
+++ 2.6.24-mm1+/net/ax25/ax25_route.c 2008-02-11 11:58:47.0 +
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ void ax25_rt_device_down(struct net_devi
{
ax25_route *s, *t, *ax25_rt;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
s = ax25_rt;
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ void ax25_rt_device_down(struct net_devi
}
}
}
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
}
static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(struct ax25_routes_struct *route)
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
if (route-digi_count AX25_MAX_DIGIS)
return -EINVAL;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
ax25_rt-digipeat = NULL;
if (route-digi_count != 0) {
if ((ax25_rt-digipeat =
kmalloc(sizeof(ax25_digi), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return -ENOMEM;
}
ax25_rt-digipeat-lastrepeat = -1;
@@ -102,14 +102,14 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
ax25_rt-digipeat-calls[i]=
route-digi_addr[i];
}
}
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return 0;
}
ax25_rt = ax25_rt-next;
}
if ((ax25_rt = kmalloc(sizeof(ax25_route), GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return -ENOMEM;
}
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
ax25_rt-ip_mode = ' ';
if (route-digi_count != 0) {
if ((ax25_rt-digipeat = kmalloc(sizeof(ax25_digi),
GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) {
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
kfree(ax25_rt);
return -ENOMEM;
}
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static int __must_check ax25_rt_add(stru
}
ax25_rt-next = ax25_route_list;
ax25_route_list = ax25_rt;
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return 0;
}
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_del(struct ax25_route
if ((ax25_dev = ax25_addr_ax25dev(route-port_addr)) == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_del(struct ax25_route
}
}
}
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return 0;
}
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_opt(struct ax25_route
if ((ax25_dev = ax25_addr_ax25dev(rt_option-port_addr)) == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static int ax25_rt_opt(struct ax25_route
}
out:
- write_unlock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_unlock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
return err;
}
@@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ void __exit ax25_rt_free(void)
{
ax25_route *s, *ax25_rt = ax25_route_list;
- write_lock(ax25_route_lock);
+ write_lock_bh(ax25_route_lock);
while (ax25_rt != NULL) {
s = ax25_rt;
