linux.git/net/rose, branch v2.6.26-rc7

rose: Wrong list_lock argument in rose_node seqops

2008-05-03T00:03:22+00:00

In rose_node_start() as well as in rose_node_stop() __acquires() and
spin_lock_bh() were wrongly passing rose_neigh_list_lock instead of
rose_node_list_lock arguments.

Signed-off-by: Bernard Pidoux 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

[ROSE]: Fix soft lockup wrt. rose_node_list_lock

2008-04-20T22:58:07+00:00

[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.25 #3
---------------------------------------------
ax25ipd/3811 is trying to acquire lock:
  (rose_node_list_lock){-+..}, at: [] rose_get_neigh+0x1a/0xa0 
[rose]

but task is already holding lock:
  (rose_node_list_lock){-+..}, at: [] 
rose_route_frame+0x4d/0x620 [rose]

other info that might help us debug this:
6 locks held by ax25ipd/3811:
  #0:  (&tty->atomic_write_lock){--..}, at: [] 
tty_write_lock+0x1c/0x50
  #1:  (rcu_read_lock){..--}, at: [] net_rx_action+0x96/0x230
  #2:  (rcu_read_lock){..--}, at: [] netif_receive_skb+0x100/0x2f0
  #3:  (rose_node_list_lock){-+..}, at: [] 
rose_route_frame+0x4d/0x620 [rose]
  #4:  (rose_neigh_list_lock){-+..}, at: [] 
rose_route_frame+0x57/0x620 [rose]
  #5:  (rose_route_list_lock){-+..}, at: [] 
rose_route_frame+0x61/0x620 [rose]

stack backtrace:
Pid: 3811, comm: ax25ipd Not tainted 2.6.25 #3
  [] print_deadlock_bug+0xc7/0xd0
  [] check_deadlock+0x9a/0xb0
  [] validate_chain+0x1e2/0x310
  [] ? validate_chain+0xa5/0x310
  [] ? native_sched_clock+0x88/0xc0
  [] __lock_acquire+0x1a1/0x750
  [] lock_acquire+0x81/0xa0
  [] ? rose_get_neigh+0x1a/0xa0 [rose]
  [] _spin_lock_bh+0x33/0x60
  [] ? rose_get_neigh+0x1a/0xa0 [rose]
  [] rose_get_neigh+0x1a/0xa0 [rose]
  [] rose_route_frame+0x464/0x620 [rose]
  [] ? _read_unlock+0x1d/0x20
  [] ? rose_route_frame+0x0/0x620 [rose]
  [] ax25_rx_iframe+0x66/0x3b0 [ax25]
  [] ? ax25_start_t3timer+0x1f/0x40 [ax25]
  [] ax25_std_frame_in+0x7fb/0x890 [ax25]
  [] ? _spin_unlock_bh+0x25/0x30
  [] ax25_kiss_rcv+0x2c6/0x800 [ax25]
  [] ? sock_def_readable+0x59/0x80
  [] ? __lock_release+0x47/0x70
  [] ? sock_def_readable+0x59/0x80
  [] ? _read_unlock+0x1d/0x20
  [] ? sock_def_readable+0x59/0x80
  [] ? sock_queue_rcv_skb+0x13a/0x1d0
  [] ? sock_queue_rcv_skb+0x45/0x1d0
  [] ? ax25_kiss_rcv+0x0/0x800 [ax25]
  [] netif_receive_skb+0x255/0x2f0
  [] ? netif_receive_skb+0x100/0x2f0
  [] process_backlog+0x7c/0xf0
  [] net_rx_action+0x16c/0x230
  [] ? net_rx_action+0x96/0x230
  [] __do_softirq+0x93/0x120
  [] ? mkiss_receive_buf+0x33a/0x3f0 [mkiss]
  [] do_softirq+0x57/0x60
  [] local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xe0
  [] _spin_unlock_bh+0x25/0x30
  [] mkiss_receive_buf+0x33a/0x3f0 [mkiss]
  [] pty_write+0x47/0x60
  [] write_chan+0x1b0/0x220
  [] ? tty_write_lock+0x1c/0x50
  [] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x10
  [] tty_write+0x12a/0x1c0
  [] ? write_chan+0x0/0x220
  [] vfs_write+0x96/0x130
  [] ? tty_write+0x0/0x1c0
  [] sys_write+0x3d/0x70
  [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
  =======================
BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 61s! [ax25ipd:3811]

Pid: 3811, comm: ax25ipd Not tainted (2.6.25 #3)
EIP: 0060:[] EFLAGS: 00000246 CPU: 0
EIP is at native_read_tsc+0xb/0x20
EAX: b404aa2c EBX: b404a9c9 ECX: 017f1000 EDX: 0000076b
ESI: 00000001 EDI: 00000000 EBP: ecc83afc ESP: ecc83afc
  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0033 SS: 0068
CR0: 8005003b CR2: b7f5f000 CR3: 2cd8e000 CR4: 000006f0
DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
DR6: ffff0ff0 DR7: 00000400
  [] delay_tsc+0x17/0x30
  [] __delay+0x9/0x10
  [] __spin_lock_debug+0x76/0xf0
  [] ? spin_bug+0x18/0x100
  [] ? __lock_contended+0xa3/0x110
  [] _raw_spin_lock+0x68/0x90
  [] _spin_lock_bh+0x4f/0x60
  [] ? rose_get_neigh+0x1a/0xa0 [rose]
  [] rose_get_neigh+0x1a/0xa0 [rose]
  [] rose_route_frame+0x464/0x620 [rose]
  [] ? _read_unlock+0x1d/0x20
  [] ? rose_route_frame+0x0/0x620 [rose]
  [] ax25_rx_iframe+0x66/0x3b0 [ax25]
  [] ? ax25_start_t3timer+0x1f/0x40 [ax25]
  [] ax25_std_frame_in+0x7fb/0x890 [ax25]
  [] ? _spin_unlock_bh+0x25/0x30
  [] ax25_kiss_rcv+0x2c6/0x800 [ax25]
  [] ? sock_def_readable+0x59/0x80
  [] ? __lock_release+0x47/0x70
  [] ? sock_def_readable+0x59/0x80
  [] ? _read_unlock+0x1d/0x20
  [] ? sock_def_readable+0x59/0x80
  [] ? sock_queue_rcv_skb+0x13a/0x1d0
  [] ? sock_queue_rcv_skb+0x45/0x1d0
  [] ? ax25_kiss_rcv+0x0/0x800 [ax25]
  [] netif_receive_skb+0x255/0x2f0
  [] ? netif_receive_skb+0x100/0x2f0
  [] process_backlog+0x7c/0xf0
  [] net_rx_action+0x16c/0x230
  [] ? net_rx_action+0x96/0x230
  [] __do_softirq+0x93/0x120
  [] ? mkiss_receive_buf+0x33a/0x3f0 [mkiss]
  [] do_softirq+0x57/0x60
  [] local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xe0
  [] _spin_unlock_bh+0x25/0x30
  [] mkiss_receive_buf+0x33a/0x3f0 [mkiss]
  [] pty_write+0x47/0x60
  [] write_chan+0x1b0/0x220
  [] ? tty_write_lock+0x1c/0x50
  [] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x10
  [] tty_write+0x12a/0x1c0
  [] ? write_chan+0x0/0x220
  [] vfs_write+0x96/0x130
  [] ? tty_write+0x0/0x1c0
  [] sys_write+0x3d/0x70
  [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
  =======================

Since rose_route_frame() does not use rose_node_list we can safely
remove rose_node_list_lock spin lock here and let it be free for
rose_get_neigh().

Signed-off-by: Bernard Pidoux 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

rose: Socket lock was not released before returning to user space

2008-04-20T01:41:51+00:00

================================================
[ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
------------------------------------------------
xfbbd/3683 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
1 lock held by xfbbd/3683:
  #0:  (sk_lock-AF_ROSE){--..}, at: [] rose_connect+0x73/0x420 [rose]

INFO: task xfbbd:3683 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
xfbbd         D 00000246     0  3683   3669
        c6965ee0 00000092 c02c5c40 00000246 c0f6b5f0 c0f6b5c0 c0f6b5f0 c0f6b5c0
        c0f6b614 c6965f18 c024b74b ffffffff c06ba070 00000000 00000000 00000001
        c6ab07c0 c012d450 c0f6b634 c0f6b634 c7b5bf10 c0d6004c c7b5bf10 c6965f40
Call Trace:
  [] lock_sock_nested+0x6b/0xd0
  [] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
  [] sock_fasync+0x41/0x150
  [] sock_close+0x19/0x40
  [] __fput+0xb4/0x170
  [] fput+0x18/0x20
  [] filp_close+0x3e/0x70
  [] sys_close+0x69/0xb0
  [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
  =======================
INFO: lockdep is turned off.

Signed-off-by: Bernard Pidoux 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

Merge branch 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6

2008-04-03T05:35:23+00:00

Conflicts:

	drivers/net/s2io.c

[ROSE/AX25] af_rose: rose_release() fix

2008-04-02T06:56:17+00:00

rose_release() doesn't release sockets properly, e.g. it skips
sock_orphan(), so OOPSes are triggered in sock_def_write_space(),
which was observed especially while ROSE skbs were kfreed from
ax25_frames_acked(). There is also sock_hold() and lock_sock() added -
similarly to ax25_release(). Thanks to Bernard Pidoux for substantial
help in debugging this problem.

Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski 
Reported-and-tested-by: Bernard Pidoux 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

[NET] NETNS: Omit sock->sk_net without CONFIG_NET_NS.

2008-03-25T19:39:55+00:00

Introduce per-sock inlines: sock_net(), sock_net_set()
and per-inet_timewait_sock inlines: twsk_net(), twsk_net_set().
Without CONFIG_NET_NS, no namespace other than &init_net exists.
Let's explicitly define them to help compiler optimizations.

Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki

[NET] NETNS: Omit net_device->nd_net without CONFIG_NET_NS.

2008-03-25T19:39:53+00:00

Introduce per-net_device inlines: dev_net(), dev_net_set().
Without CONFIG_NET_NS, no namespace other than &init_net exists.
Let's explicitly define them to help compiler optimizations.

Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki

[ROSE]: Supress sparse warnings

2008-01-28T23:02:44+00:00

  CHECK   net/rose/af_rose.c
net/rose/af_rose.c:125:11: warning: expensive signed divide
net/rose/af_rose.c:976:46: warning: expensive signed divide
net/rose/af_rose.c:1379:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_info_start' - wrong count at exit
net/rose/af_rose.c:1406:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_info_stop' - unexpected unlock
  CHECK   net/rose/rose_in.c
net/rose/rose_in.c:185:25: warning: expensive signed divide
  CHECK   net/rose/rose_route.c
net/rose/rose_route.c:997:46: warning: expensive signed divide
net/rose/rose_route.c:1070:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_node_start' - wrong count at exit
net/rose/rose_route.c:1093:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_node_stop' - unexpected unlock
net/rose/rose_route.c:1146:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_neigh_start' - wrong count at exit
net/rose/rose_route.c:1169:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_neigh_stop' - unexpected unlock
net/rose/rose_route.c:1229:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_route_start' - wrong count at exit
net/rose/rose_route.c:1252:13: warning: context imbalance in 'rose_route_stop' - unexpected unlock

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

[NET]: Simple ctl_table to ctl_path conversions.

2008-01-28T23:01:07+00:00

This patch includes many places, that only required
replacing the ctl_table-s with appropriate ctl_paths
and call register_sysctl_paths().

Nothing special was done with them.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller

[NET]: Convert init_timer into setup_timer

2008-01-28T22:53:35+00:00

Many-many code in the kernel initialized the timer->function
and  timer->data together with calling init_timer(timer). There
is already a helper for this. Use it for networking code.

The patch is HUGE, but makes the code 130 lines shorter
(98 insertions(+), 228 deletions(-)).

Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov 
Acked-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller