Description of problem: Upon shutting down NetworkManager, I got: ======================================================= [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.25-0.113.rc5.git2.fc9 #1 ------------------------------------------------------- NetworkManager/2555 is trying to acquire lock: (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff81044da1>] flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa6 but task is already holding lock: (rtnl_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8122627b>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x1a/0x33 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (rtnl_mutex){--..}: [<ffffffff81054b58>] __lock_acquire+0xbd3/0xd63 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff8129fa0b>] mutex_lock_nested+0xf7/0x295 [<ffffffff8122625f>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14 [<ffffffff812271a8>] linkwatch_event+0x9/0x27 [<ffffffff81044300>] run_workqueue+0xfc/0x203 [<ffffffff810444e7>] worker_thread+0xe0/0xf1 [<ffffffff81047aaf>] kthread+0x49/0x76 [<ffffffff8100cf78>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff -> #1 ((linkwatch_work).work){--..}: [<ffffffff81054b58>] __lock_acquire+0xbd3/0xd63 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff810442fa>] run_workqueue+0xf6/0x203 [<ffffffff810444e7>] worker_thread+0xe0/0xf1 [<ffffffff81047aaf>] kthread+0x49/0x76 [<ffffffff8100cf78>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff -> #0 (events){--..}: [<ffffffff81054a5b>] __lock_acquire+0xad6/0xd63 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff81044dfc>] flush_workqueue+0x5b/0xa6 [<ffffffff81044e57>] flush_scheduled_work+0x10/0x12 [<ffffffff881f3ed6>] tulip_down+0x2c/0x26f [tulip] [<ffffffff881f4b63>] tulip_close+0x32/0x171 [tulip] [<ffffffff8121d8cf>] dev_close+0x62/0x83 [<ffffffff8121d58e>] dev_change_flags+0xaf/0x172 [<ffffffff81225132>] do_setlink+0x276/0x338 [<ffffffff81225308>] rtnl_setlink+0x114/0x116 [<ffffffff8122646c>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x1d8/0x1f9 [<ffffffff8123660a>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x3e/0xac [<ffffffff8122628a>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x29/0x33 [<ffffffff8123605d>] netlink_unicast+0x1fe/0x26b [<ffffffff81236394>] netlink_sendmsg+0x2ca/0x2dd [<ffffffff81210523>] sock_sendmsg+0xfd/0x120 [<ffffffff81210718>] sys_sendmsg+0x1d2/0x23c [<ffffffff8100c1c7>] tracesys+0xdc/0xe1 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by NetworkManager/2555: #0: (rtnl_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8122627b>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x1a/0x33 stack backtrace: Pid: 2555, comm: NetworkManager Not tainted 2.6.25-0.113.rc5.git2.fc9 #1 Call Trace: [<ffffffff81053cea>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x70/0x7b [<ffffffff81053b02>] ? print_circular_bug_entry+0x48/0x4f [<ffffffff81054a5b>] __lock_acquire+0xad6/0xd63 [<ffffffff810537d6>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5c/0x77 [<ffffffff812a14b1>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x30 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff81044da1>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa6 [<ffffffff81044dfc>] flush_workqueue+0x5b/0xa6 [<ffffffff81044e57>] flush_scheduled_work+0x10/0x12 [<ffffffff881f3ed6>] :tulip:tulip_down+0x2c/0x26f [<ffffffff81053967>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xf1/0x115 [<ffffffff881f4b63>] :tulip:tulip_close+0x32/0x171 [<ffffffff8121d8cf>] dev_close+0x62/0x83 [<ffffffff8121d58e>] dev_change_flags+0xaf/0x172 [<ffffffff81225132>] do_setlink+0x276/0x338 [<ffffffff812a144e>] ? _read_unlock+0x26/0x2b [<ffffffff81225308>] rtnl_setlink+0x114/0x116 [<ffffffff8122646c>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x1d8/0x1f9 [<ffffffff81226294>] ? rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x0/0x1f9 [<ffffffff8123660a>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x3e/0xac [<ffffffff8122628a>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x29/0x33 [<ffffffff8123605d>] netlink_unicast+0x1fe/0x26b [<ffffffff81236394>] netlink_sendmsg+0x2ca/0x2dd [<ffffffff81210523>] sock_sendmsg+0xfd/0x120 [<ffffffff812103ad>] ? sock_recvmsg+0x10e/0x133 [<ffffffff81047dc7>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<ffffffff810545c7>] ? __lock_acquire+0x642/0xd63 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81210f39>] ? move_addr_to_kernel+0x40/0x49 [<ffffffff81218292>] ? verify_iovec+0x4f/0x91 [<ffffffff81210718>] sys_sendmsg+0x1d2/0x23c [<ffffffff810ab076>] ? do_readv_writev+0x17e/0x193 [<ffffffff81074096>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x126/0x15a [<ffffffff8101346c>] ? syscall_trace_enter+0xb0/0xb4 [<ffffffff8100c1c7>] tracesys+0xdc/0xe1 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.6.25-0.113.rc5.git2.fc9
Different lockdep spew with 121: ======================================================= [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.25-0.121.rc5.git4.fc9 #1 ------------------------------------------------------- iwl3945/23108 is trying to acquire lock: (rtnl_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8122654b>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14 but task is already holding lock: (&ifsta->work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff810442b5>] run_workqueue+0xb1/0x203 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&ifsta->work){--..}: [<ffffffff81054b58>] __lock_acquire+0xbd3/0xd63 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff810442fa>] run_workqueue+0xf6/0x203 [<ffffffff810444e7>] worker_thread+0xe0/0xf1 [<ffffffff81047aaf>] kthread+0x49/0x76 [<ffffffff8100cf78>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff -> #1 ((name)){--..}: [<ffffffff81054b58>] __lock_acquire+0xbd3/0xd63 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff81044dfc>] flush_workqueue+0x5b/0xa6 [<ffffffff8813f717>] ieee80211_stop+0x323/0x405 [mac80211] [<ffffffff8121dbc9>] dev_close+0x62/0x83 [<ffffffff8121d888>] dev_change_flags+0xaf/0x172 [<ffffffff8122541e>] do_setlink+0x276/0x338 [<ffffffff812255f4>] rtnl_setlink+0x114/0x116 [<ffffffff81226758>] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x1d8/0x1f9 [<ffffffff812368f6>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x3e/0xac [<ffffffff81226576>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x29/0x33 [<ffffffff81236349>] netlink_unicast+0x1fe/0x26b [<ffffffff81236680>] netlink_sendmsg+0x2ca/0x2dd [<ffffffff81210820>] sock_sendmsg+0xfd/0x120 [<ffffffff81210a15>] sys_sendmsg+0x1d2/0x23c [<ffffffff8100c1c7>] tracesys+0xdc/0xe1 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff -> #0 (rtnl_mutex){--..}: [<ffffffff81054a5b>] __lock_acquire+0xad6/0xd63 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff812a0163>] mutex_lock_nested+0xf7/0x295 [<ffffffff8122654b>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14 [<ffffffff88148894>] ieee80211_associated+0x1a0/0x1ee [mac80211] [<ffffffff88148f51>] ieee80211_rx_mgmt_assoc_resp+0x66f/0x681 [mac80211] [<ffffffff8814a369>] ieee80211_sta_work+0x706/0x1800 [mac80211] [<ffffffff81044300>] run_workqueue+0xfc/0x203 [<ffffffff810444e7>] worker_thread+0xe0/0xf1 [<ffffffff81047aaf>] kthread+0x49/0x76 [<ffffffff8100cf78>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff other info that might help us debug this: 2 locks held by iwl3945/23108: #0: ((name)){--..}, at: [<ffffffff810442b5>] run_workqueue+0xb1/0x203 #1: (&ifsta->work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff810442b5>] run_workqueue+0xb1/0x203 stack backtrace: Pid: 23108, comm: iwl3945 Not tainted 2.6.25-0.121.rc5.git4.fc9 #1 Call Trace: [<ffffffff81053cea>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x70/0x7b [<ffffffff81053b02>] ? print_circular_bug_entry+0x48/0x4f [<ffffffff81054a5b>] __lock_acquire+0xad6/0xd63 [<ffffffff812a1c09>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x30 [<ffffffff81054d46>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78 [<ffffffff8122654b>] ? rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14 [<ffffffff812a0163>] mutex_lock_nested+0xf7/0x295 [<ffffffff8122654b>] ? rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14 [<ffffffff81045d19>] ? synchronize_rcu+0x35/0x3c [<ffffffff8122654b>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14 [<ffffffff88148894>] :mac80211:ieee80211_associated+0x1a0/0x1ee [<ffffffff88148f51>] :mac80211:ieee80211_rx_mgmt_assoc_resp+0x66f/0x681 [<ffffffff810537d6>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5c/0x77 [<ffffffff81053967>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xf1/0x115 [<ffffffff8814a369>] :mac80211:ieee80211_sta_work+0x706/0x1800 [<ffffffff8104ae7c>] ? ktime_get_ts+0x46/0x4b [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81030c13>] ? hrtick_set+0x8b/0xfc [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d [<ffffffff812a1c09>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x30 [<ffffffff81044300>] run_workqueue+0xfc/0x203 [<ffffffff88149c63>] ? :mac80211:ieee80211_sta_work+0x0/0x1800 [<ffffffff810444e7>] worker_thread+0xe0/0xf1 [<ffffffff81047dc7>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38 [<ffffffff81044407>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0xf1 [<ffffffff81047aaf>] kthread+0x49/0x76 [<ffffffff8100cf78>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 [<ffffffff8100c68f>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 [<ffffffff81047a66>] ? kthread+0x0/0x76 [<ffffffff8100cf6e>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x12
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Long gone.