Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

On 02/22/2018 07:10 PM, Yonghong Song wrote: > Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback > function") > fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback > function. > Unfortrunately, it introduced a lockdep warni

Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

From: Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:10:35 -0800 > Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback > function") > fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback > function. > Unfortrunately,

Re: [PATCH bpf v2] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 10:10 -0800, Yonghong Song wrote: > Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback > function") > fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback > function. > Unfortrunately, it introduced a lock

[PATCH bpf v2] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback function") fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback function. Unfortrunately, it introduced a lockdep warning. When lockdep checking is turned on, running tools/testing/sel

Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

introduced a lockdep warning. When lockdep checking is turned on, running tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_lpm_map will have: [ 98.294321] = [ 98.294807] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage [ 98.295359] 4.16.0-rc2+ #193 Not tainted [

Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

Hi Yonghong, Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: [auto build test WARNING on bpf/master] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Yonghong-Song/bpf-fix-rcu-lockdep-warning-for-lpm_trie-map_free-callback/20180222-202658 base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux

Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 22:38 -0800, Yonghong Song wrote: > Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback > function") > fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback > function. > Unfortrunately, it introduced a lock

[PATCH bpf] bpf: fix rcu lockdep warning for lpm_trie map_free callback

Commit 9a3efb6b661f ("bpf: fix memory leak in lpm_trie map_free callback function") fixed a memory leak and removed unnecessary locks in map_free callback function. Unfortrunately, it introduced a lockdep warning. When lockdep checking is turned on, running tools/testing/sel

[PATCH net 1/3] net/mlx4_core: Fix lockdep warning in handling of mac/vlan tables

From: Jack Morgenstein In the mac and vlan register/unregister/replace functions, the driver locks the mac table mutex (or vlan table mutex) on both ports. We move to use mutex_lock_nested() to prevent warnings, such as the one below. [ 101.828445]

Re: net: lockdep warning in ip_mc_msfget (net/ipv4/igmp.c:2400)

Em 02-11-2015 22:38, Cong Wang escreveu: On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Cong Wang wrote: Good catch! This is probably introduced by: commit baf606d9c9b12517e47e0d1370e8aa9f7323f210 Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Date: Wed Mar 18

net: lockdep warning in ip_mc_msfget (net/ipv4/igmp.c:2400)

Hi all, While fuzzing with syzkaller inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next, I saw the following warning: [ 2391.993558] == [ 2391.995441] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [ 2391.995771]

Re: net: lockdep warning in ip_mc_msfget (net/ipv4/igmp.c:2400)

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > Hi all, > > While fuzzing with syzkaller inside a KVM tools guest running the latest > -next, I saw > the following warning: > > [ 2391.993558] == > [ 2391.995441] [

Re: net: lockdep warning in ip_mc_msfget (net/ipv4/igmp.c:2400)

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > > Good catch! > > This is probably introduced by: > > commit baf606d9c9b12517e47e0d1370e8aa9f7323f210 > Author: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > Date: Wed Mar 18 14:50:42 2015 -0300 > >

net: unix: lockdep warning in unix_stream_sendpage

Hi all, I'm seeing a lockdep warning that was introduced in 869e7c624 (net: af_unix: implement stream sendpage support): [377296.160447] == [377296.160449] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [377296.160455] 4.2.0-rc5-next

[PATCH 02/10] netfilter: IDLETIMER: fix lockdep warning

From: Dmitry Torokhov d...@google.com Dynamically allocated sysfs attributes should be initialized with sysfs_attr_init() otherwise lockdep will be angry with us: [ 45.468653] BUG: key ffc030fad4e0 not in .data! [ 45.468655] [ cut here ] [ 45.468666] WARNING:

Re: [PATCH] nf: IDLETIMER: fix lockdep warning

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso pa...@netfilter.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:15:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: Dynamically allocated sysfs attributes should be initialized with sysfs_attr_init() otherwise lockdep will be angry with us: [ 45.468653] BUG: key

Re: [PATCH] nf: IDLETIMER: fix lockdep warning

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:15:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: Dynamically allocated sysfs attributes should be initialized with sysfs_attr_init() otherwise lockdep will be angry with us: [ 45.468653] BUG: key ffc030fad4e0 not in .data! [ 45.468655] [ cut here

Re: [PATCH] nf: IDLETIMER: fix lockdep warning

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:02:36AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Pablo Neira Ayuso pa...@netfilter.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 05:15:01PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: Dynamically allocated sysfs attributes should be initialized with

[PATCH] nf: IDLETIMER: fix lockdep warning

Dynamically allocated sysfs attributes should be initialized with sysfs_attr_init() otherwise lockdep will be angry with us: [ 45.468653] BUG: key ffc030fad4e0 not in .data! [ 45.468655] [ cut here ] [ 45.468666] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1176 at

Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: fix RCU lockdep warning from linkdown changes

From: Andy Gospodarek go...@cumulusnetworks.com Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:37:11 -0400 The following lockdep splat was seen due to the wrong context for grabbing in_dev. ... This patch resolves that splat. Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek go...@cumulusnetworks.com Reported-by: Sergey

[PATCH net] ipv4: fix RCU lockdep warning from linkdown changes

The following lockdep splat was seen due to the wrong context for grabbing in_dev. === [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] 4.1.0-next-20150626-dbg-00020-g54a6d91-dirty #244 Not tainted --- include/linux/inetdevice.h:205 suspicious

Re: lockdep warning

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: I found this is a newly booted 2.6.25-rc2's syslog. Feb 21 20:46:33 tippex BUG: rwlock wrong owner on CPU#0, runscript.sh/2633, d2c04084 Feb 21 20:46:33 tippex Pid: 2633, comm: runscript.sh Not tainted 2.6.25-rc2 #3 Feb 21 20:46:33 tippex

Re: lockdep warning

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: This needs to be CCed to netdev. Any chance that git revert 69cc64d8d92 makes this report go away? I'll have to install a git repo to check, or maybe you can send me the diff to reverse vs. 2.6.25-rc2? diff --git

Re: lockdep warning

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Any chance that git revert 69cc64d8d92 makes this report go away? I've tested the patch and I no longer get that lock thing in my syslog. /A -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

Re: lockdep warning

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: Any chance that git revert 69cc64d8d92 makes this report go away? I've tested the patch and I no longer get that lock thing in my syslog. Thanks for verification. Hmm, I don't immediately see how this patch could make neigh-lock owner

[BUG][AX25] mkiss and ax25_route lockdep warning

Hello, After using Lock debugging: prove locking correctness with the Kernel I got this warning: = [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] 2.6.24-dg8ngn-p02 #1 - inconsistent {softirq-on-W} - {in-softirq-R} usage. linuxnet/3046

Re: bluetooth : lockdep warning on rfcomm

On Jan 24, 2008 11:02 AM, Dave Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 #8 - bluepush/3213 is trying to acquire lock: (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){--..},

Re: bluetooth : lockdep warning on rfcomm

On Jan 24, 2008 5:25 PM, Dave Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 24, 2008 11:02 AM, Dave Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 #8 -

bluetooth : lockdep warning on rfcomm

= [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 #8 - bluepush/3213 is trying to acquire lock: (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){--..}, at: [f8978c80] l2cap_sock_bind+0x40/0x100 [l2cap] but task is already

Bluetooth lockdep warning

I'm getting this on current -git after adding an obexfs mount to my fstab: = [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.22-rc6 #2 - obexfs/3786 is trying to acquire lock: (sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH){--..},

Re: [PATCH (take 2)] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:47:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 07:40:00 +0200 After initializing dev-_xmit_lock register_netdevice() sets lockdep class according to dev-type. Idea of this patch - by David Miller.

Re: [PATCH (take 2)] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:17:32 +0200 BTW - I think some patch on vlan cannot do any harm (at least like this previous of mine - with only ppp considered), and maybe this all could be forgotten. Let's wait to see if any new messages show up. I think

Re: [PATCH (take 2)] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:17:51PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:17:32 +0200 BTW - I think some patch on vlan cannot do any harm (at least like this previous of mine - with only ppp considered), and maybe this all could be

Re: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:31 AM Subject: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200 After

Re: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:31 AM Subject: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200 After

Re: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:49:47PM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: I've patched 2.6.22-rc1 and there was no warnings from lock debugger. Jura Many thanks, Jura! It seems reality is sometimes merciful... On the other hand I wonder, how all this could stay so long: a configuration similar

[PATCH (take 2)] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

Sorry - I've fogotten about something very important! (Plus a small change in the diff.) Jarek P. --- (take 2) After initializing dev-_xmit_lock register_netdevice() sets lockdep class according to dev-type. Idea of this patch - by David Miller. Reported tested by: Yuriy N. Shkandybin [EMAIL

Re: [PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 12:49:47PM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: I've patched 2.6.22-rc1 and there was no warnings from lock debugger. So, you mean only this one patch - without previous vlan patch? Very interesting... Thanks once more, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH (take 2)] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 07:40:00 +0200 After initializing dev-_xmit_lock register_netdevice() sets lockdep class according to dev-type. Idea of this patch - by David Miller. Reported tested by: Yuriy N. Shkandybin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by:

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

actually fix the problem yet? I might be thinking about something else... yeah, sorry, it seems that the discussion is ongoing. Please drop the patch. I did. After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is not enough

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200 After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is not enough, this patch could be dumped. But now I changed my mind: there are really many

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200 After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is not enough, this patch

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: ... For each unique netdev type, use a different locking class. That will fix this forever, anything else is a situation specific band-aid (but then again isn't

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:28:45 +0200 Yes, this is very good idea, and I wonder, why you didn't try this yourself (after my ignore). Because you are a skilled programmer and you might find some flaw in my suggestion :-) - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:18:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:28:45 +0200 Yes, this is very good idea, and I wonder, why you didn't try this yourself (after my ignore). Because you are a skilled programmer and you might

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:08:29AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:28:45AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: ... For each unique netdev type, use a different locking class. That will fix this forever,

[PATCH] netdev: lockdep classes in register_netdevice Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:39:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:07:00 +0200 After sending this patch I was a little confused, when next lockdep warning report appeared, and I thought - since this is not enough, this patch

[PATCH] ppp_generic: lockdep class for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

Hi, Read below, please: On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: After applying this patch i've got this: === [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.21-gentoo #2

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

applied - 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 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:57:19 -0400 applied I was under the impression that this patch didn't actually fix the problem yet? I might be thinking about something else... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a

Re: [patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:03:09 -0700 (PDT) David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:57:19 -0400 applied I was under the impression that this patch didn't actually fix the problem yet? I might be thinking about something else...

[patch 04/13] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/net/ppp_generic.c |6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff -puN drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning drivers/net/ppp_generic.c --- a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix

Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0400, Yuriy N

Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:03:23AM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: Yes, there is no real lockup with pppoe ll repeat my configuration: vpn (pptp(mostly)+pppoe) concentrator PPPoE provided through 802.1q +OSPF (quagga) I think, it's a little too general... Probably at least ifconfig and ip

[PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:49:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... But there is also a second, very similar lockdep report, probably also false (lockdep cannot see the difference between locks of two different, I hope, vlan devices), which needs more work: a) vlan should use different

[PATCH (take 2)] vlan: lockdep class for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 02:32:24AM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:35:37 +0200 After rethinking there is the 3-rd way (as usual): c) vlan should use different lockdep lock subclasses or classes for different types of devices,

Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:49:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote

Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: After applying this patch i've got this: === [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.21-gentoo #2

[patch 10/15] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/net/ppp_generic.c |6 -- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff -puN drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning drivers/net/ppp_generic.c --- a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix

Re: [patch 10/15] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:27:29 -0700 lockdep has seen locks - #0 - - #3 taken in circular order, but IMHO, lock - #3 (pch-downl) taken after - #2 (ppp-wlock) differs from pch-downl lock taken in - #0 (before vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key) and lockdep should be notified

Re: [patch 10/15] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning drivers/net/ppp_generic.c --- a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning +++ a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c @@ -1433,7 +1433,8 @@ ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch) struct sk_buff *skb; struct ppp *ppp

Re: [patch 10/15] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:39:11AM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:27:29 -0700 lockdep has seen locks - #0 - - #3 taken in circular order, but IMHO, lock - #3 (pch-downl) taken after - #2 (ppp-wlock) differs from pch-downl lock taken in - #0

Re: [patch 10/15] ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning

-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff -puN drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning drivers/net/ppp_generic.c --- a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning +++ a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c @@ -1433,7 +1433,8 @@ ppp_channel_push(struct

[PATCH] ppp_generic: lockdep warning Re: [Bug 8132] New: pptp server lockup ...

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:49:12AM +0300, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: I've changed kernel to rc4 and completely changed hardware. Now this is I've got new trace, but this is another problem as i can see and connected with pppoe === [

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 07:20:00AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:13:01 +0200 Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: [My mail provider is down, so responding manually] Jarek Poplawski wrote:

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:07:04PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: Dave Jones wrote: With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up completely. I hooked up a serial console, and found this.. u32 classifier Performance counters on input device check

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 04:53:04PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:07:04 +0200 ... Although the HTB bug is post-2.6.18, the other issue has been around for a long time. Thus I'll need to submit the second patch to -stable, but I

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

[My mail provider is down, so responding manually] Jarek Poplawski wrote: [NET_SCHED]: Fix fallout from dev-qdisc RCU change Sorry again but I can't abstain from some doubts: ... diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c index 14de297..4d891be 100644 --- a/net/core/dev.c +++

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: [My mail provider is down, so responding manually] Jarek Poplawski wrote: [NET_SCHED]: Fix fallout from dev-qdisc RCU change Sorry again but I can't abstain from some doubts: ... diff --git a/net/core/dev.c

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:13:01 +0200 Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: [My mail provider is down, so responding manually] Jarek Poplawski wrote: [NET_SCHED]: Fix fallout from dev-qdisc RCU change Sorry again

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 05:20:34PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: jamal wrote: Yes, that looks plausible. Can you try making those changes and see if the warning is gone? I think this

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

Jarek Poplawski wrote: Sorry for my not humble and simplistic opinion, but I'd dare to remind you are changing stable version and even without this lockups this patch would look very serious. Why don't try to restore not-rcu version of qdisc_destroy which looks not lot to do. I'm trying to

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

Dave Jones wrote: With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up completely. I hooked up a serial console, and found this.. u32 classifier Performance counters on input device check on Actions configured BUG: warning at

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

Dave Jones wrote: With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up completely. I hooked up a serial console, and found this.. u32 classifier Performance counters on input device check on Actions configured BUG: warning at

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

27 Eyl 2006 Çar 13:14 tarihinde şunları yazmıştınız: Dave Jones wrote: With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up completely. I hooked up a serial console, and found this.. u32 classifier Performance counters on input device check on Actions

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:07:04 +0200 Dave Jones wrote: With this patch, I get no lockdep warnings, but the machine locks up completely. I hooked up a serial console, and found this.. u32 classifier Performance counters on input

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

Patrick McHardy wrote: jamal wrote: Yes, that looks plausible. Can you try making those changes and see if the warning is gone? I think this points to a bigger brokeness caused by the move of dev-qdisc to RCU. It means destruction of filters and actions doesn't necessarily happens in

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: Patrick McHardy wrote: jamal wrote: Yes, that looks plausible. Can you try making those changes and see if the warning is gone? I think this points to a bigger brokeness caused by the move of dev-qdisc to

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On 24-09-2006 23:29, Dave Jones wrote: = [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] - inconsistent {softirq-on-R} - {in-softirq-W} usage. swapper/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes: (police_lock){-+--}, at: [f8d304fd]

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 14:43 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: It's probably 2.6.18 and should change a little now (git4) but IMHO main problem stays: it looks tcf_act_police_locate in act_police.c was preempted in read_lock (tcf_police_lookup) - now the same is possible in tcf_hash_lookup. So

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

On 25-09-2006 14:47, jamal wrote: On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 14:43 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: It's probably 2.6.18 and should change a little now (git4) but IMHO main problem stays: it looks tcf_act_police_locate in act_police.c was preempted in read_lock (tcf_police_lookup) - now the same is

Re: tc related lockdep warning.

jamal wrote: On Mon, 2006-25-09 at 14:43 +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: It's probably 2.6.18 and should change a little now (git4) but IMHO main problem stays: it looks tcf_act_police_locate in act_police.c was preempted in read_lock (tcf_police_lookup) - now the same is possible in

[patch 11/11] forcedeth: hardirq lockdep warning

-puN drivers/net/forcedeth.c~forcedeth-hardirq-lockdep-warning drivers/net/forcedeth.c --- a/drivers/net/forcedeth.c~forcedeth-hardirq-lockdep-warning +++ a/drivers/net/forcedeth.c @@ -2497,6 +2497,7 @@ static irqreturn_t nv_nic_irq_tx(int foo u8 __iomem *base = get_hwbase(dev); u32

Re: [patch 11/11] forcedeth: hardirq lockdep warning

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] BUG: warning at kernel/lockdep.c:1816/trace_hardirqs_on() (Not tainted) Call Trace: show_trace dump_stack trace_hardirqs_on :forcedeth:nv_nic_irq_other handle_IRQ_event __do_IRQ do_IRQ ret_from_intr DWARF2 barf

tc related lockdep warning.

= [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] - inconsistent {softirq-on-R} - {in-softirq-W} usage. swapper/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[2]:HE1:SE0] takes: (police_lock){-+--}, at: [f8d304fd] tcf_police_destroy+0x24/0x8f [act_police] {softirq-on-R} state

Re: neigh_lookup lockdep warning

On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 01:26:59AM +, Dave Jones wrote: Seen during boot of a 2.6.18rc5-git1 based kernel. === [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.17-1.2608.fc6 #1

neigh_lookup lockdep warning

Seen during boot of a 2.6.18rc5-git1 based kernel. Dave === [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.17-1.2608.fc6 #1 --- swapper/0 is trying to acquire

[2.6.18-rc4] lockdep warning at inet6_addr_add

Hi, I get a warning from lockdep during boot; 2.6.18-rc3 don't have this warning. I see a similar report in the archive (I haven't found time to test the patch...): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdevm=115506258902757w=2 but my stacktrace is a bit different, so I'm reporting this one

Re: [2.6.18-rc4] lockdep warning at inet6_addr_add

Luca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get a warning from lockdep during boot; 2.6.18-rc3 don't have this warning. I see a similar report in the archive (I haven't found time to test the patch...): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdevm=115506258902757w=2 It's the same issue. Thanks, --