Bug 223649
| Summary: | INFO: soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock order detected | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ronald Warsow <rwarsow> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Eric Paris <eparis> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Brian Brock <bbrock> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | cebbert, davej, wtogami |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-02-14 15:40:55 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 202141 | ||
Description of problem: at the end of yum update (rawhide) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.6.19-1.2906.fc7 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: ====================================================== [ INFO: soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.19-1.2906.fc7 #0 ------------------------------------------------------ sendmail/1945 [HC0[0]:SC0[1]:HE1:SE0] is trying to acquire: (&ssec->nlbl_lock){--..}, at: [<c04cef9b>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0xbb/0x123 and this task is already holding: (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#3){-.-+}, at: [<c05e36e0>] inet_accept+0x70/0xb5 which would create a new lock dependency: (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#3){-.-+} -> (&ssec->nlbl_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a soft-irq-safe lock: (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#3){-.-+} ... which became soft-irq-safe at: [<c04401a8>] __lock_acquire+0x381/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c0604b06>] _read_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c059db71>] sock_def_write_space+0x18/0x93 [<c059ddcc>] sock_wfree+0x27/0x3c [<c059f665>] __kfree_skb+0xa0/0x100 [<c059f6f3>] kfree_skb+0x2e/0x30 [<c05a3282>] dev_kfree_skb_any+0x7a/0x7e [<e094e797>] e100_tx_clean+0x97/0x10e [e100] [<e094fc1b>] e100_poll+0x216/0x294 [e100] [<c05a56e6>] net_rx_action+0xa1/0x1a8 [<c042bfa6>] __do_softirq+0x6f/0xe2 [<c04063a9>] do_softirq+0x61/0xc7 [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff to a soft-irq-unsafe lock: (&ssec->nlbl_lock){--..} ... which became soft-irq-unsafe at: ... [<c0440234>] __lock_acquire+0x40d/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c06049a1>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c04cef9b>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0xbb/0x123 [<c04d100c>] selinux_netlbl_socket_post_create+0x2d/0x2f [<c04c83df>] selinux_socket_post_create+0x156/0x15c [<c059addc>] __sock_create+0x179/0x1b2 [<c059ae4e>] sock_create+0x1a/0x1f [<c059b0d5>] sys_socket+0x1b/0x3c [<c059b95a>] sys_socketcall+0x77/0x241 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff other info that might help us debug this: 3 locks held by sendmail/1945: #0: (sk_lock-AF_INET){--..}, at: [<c05e36a1>] inet_accept+0x31/0xb5 #1: (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#3){-.-+}, at: [<c05e36e0>] inet_accept+0x70/0xb5 #2: (policy_rwlock){..-?}, at: [<c04cef34>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0x54/0x123 the soft-irq-safe lock's dependencies: -> (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#3){-.-+} ops: 0 { initial-use at: [<c044024f>] __lock_acquire+0x428/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c0604a53>] _write_lock_bh+0x30/0x3d [<c059c9e2>] sk_common_release+0x2a/0x9c [<c05dc4e9>] udp_lib_close+0x8/0xa [<c05e3234>] inet_release+0x43/0x49 [<c059ac12>] sock_release+0x17/0x68 [<c059ae80>] sock_close+0x2d/0x33 [<c047974b>] __fput+0xbe/0x168 [<c047980c>] fput+0x17/0x19 [<c047710d>] filp_close+0x54/0x5c [<c0478091>] sys_close+0x78/0xb0 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff hardirq-on-W at: [<c044020d>] __lock_acquire+0x3e6/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c0604a53>] _write_lock_bh+0x30/0x3d [<c059c9e2>] sk_common_release+0x2a/0x9c [<c05dc4e9>] udp_lib_close+0x8/0xa [<c05e3234>] inet_release+0x43/0x49 [<c059ac12>] sock_release+0x17/0x68 [<c059ae80>] sock_close+0x2d/0x33 [<c047974b>] __fput+0xbe/0x168 [<c047980c>] fput+0x17/0x19 [<c047710d>] filp_close+0x54/0x5c [<c0478091>] sys_close+0x78/0xb0 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff in-softirq-R at: [<c04401a8>] __lock_acquire+0x381/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c0604b06>] _read_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c059db71>] sock_def_write_space+0x18/0x93 [<c059ddcc>] sock_wfree+0x27/0x3c [<c059f665>] __kfree_skb+0xa0/0x100 [<c059f6f3>] kfree_skb+0x2e/0x30 [<c05a3282>] dev_kfree_skb_any+0x7a/0x7e [<e094e797>] e100_tx_clean+0x97/0x10e [e100] [<e094fc1b>] e100_poll+0x216/0x294 [e100] [<c05a56e6>] net_rx_action+0xa1/0x1a8 [<c042bfa6>] __do_softirq+0x6f/0xe2 [<c04063a9>] do_softirq+0x61/0xc7 [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff hardirq-on-R at: [<c04401d6>] __lock_acquire+0x3af/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c0604b06>] _read_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c059db71>] sock_def_write_space+0x18/0x93 [<c059ddcc>] sock_wfree+0x27/0x3c [<c059f665>] __kfree_skb+0xa0/0x100 [<c059f6f3>] kfree_skb+0x2e/0x30 [<c05a3282>] dev_kfree_skb_any+0x7a/0x7e [<e094e797>] e100_tx_clean+0x97/0x10e [e100] [<e094fc1b>] e100_poll+0x216/0x294 [e100] [<c05a56e6>] net_rx_action+0xa1/0x1a8 [<c042bfa6>] __do_softirq+0x6f/0xe2 [<c04063a9>] do_softirq+0x61/0xc7 [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff } ... key at: [<c0a027f0>] af_callback_keys+0x10/0x100 the soft-irq-unsafe lock's dependencies: -> (&ssec->nlbl_lock){--..} ops: 0 { initial-use at: [<c044024f>] __lock_acquire+0x428/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c06049a1>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c04cef9b>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0xbb/0x123 [<c04d100c>] selinux_netlbl_socket_post_create+0x2d/0x2f [<c04c83df>] selinux_socket_post_create+0x156/0x15c [<c059addc>] __sock_create+0x179/0x1b2 [<c059ae4e>] sock_create+0x1a/0x1f [<c059b0d5>] sys_socket+0x1b/0x3c [<c059b95a>] sys_socketcall+0x77/0x241 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff softirq-on-W at: [<c0440234>] __lock_acquire+0x40d/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c06049a1>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c04cef9b>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0xbb/0x123 [<c04d100c>] selinux_netlbl_socket_post_create+0x2d/0x2f [<c04c83df>] selinux_socket_post_create+0x156/0x15c [<c059addc>] __sock_create+0x179/0x1b2 [<c059ae4e>] sock_create+0x1a/0x1f [<c059b0d5>] sys_socket+0x1b/0x3c [<c059b95a>] sys_socketcall+0x77/0x241 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff hardirq-on-W at: [<c044020d>] __lock_acquire+0x3e6/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c06049a1>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c04cef9b>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0xbb/0x123 [<c04d100c>] selinux_netlbl_socket_post_create+0x2d/0x2f [<c04c83df>] selinux_socket_post_create+0x156/0x15c [<c059addc>] __sock_create+0x179/0x1b2 [<c059ae4e>] sock_create+0x1a/0x1f [<c059b0d5>] sys_socket+0x1b/0x3c [<c059b95a>] sys_socketcall+0x77/0x241 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff } ... key at: [<c09f7b20>] __key.27496+0x0/0x8 stack backtrace: [<c04051c9>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f [<c040576e>] show_trace+0x12/0x14 [<c04057f2>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18 [<c043fd93>] check_usage+0x242/0x24c [<c04406b2>] __lock_acquire+0x88b/0xa04 [<c0440b14>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f [<c06049a1>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38 [<c04cef9b>] selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid+0xbb/0x123 [<c04d12ba>] selinux_netlbl_sock_graft+0xc7/0xcf [<c04c4ed8>] selinux_sock_graft+0x32/0x36 [<c05e36ff>] inet_accept+0x8f/0xb5 [<c059b833>] sys_accept+0xd0/0x180 [<c059b9b3>] sys_socketcall+0xd0/0x241 [<c0404058>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb ======================= Expected results: Additional info: maybe it's fixed with 2912 (from the update today)...?