Re: [BUGS] [CHECKER] 99 synchronization bugs and a lock summary database

Hello.

In article [off-list ref] (at Thu, 1 Jul 2004 18:01:00 -0700 (PDT)), Yichen Xie [off-list ref] says:

    http://glide.stanford.edu/linux-lock/err1.html (69 errors)

:

err1.html consists of potential double locks/unlocks. Acquiring a lock
twice in a row may result in a system hang, and releasing a lock more than
once with certain mutex functions (e.g. up) may cause critical section
violations.

Well,
lapb_iface.c:lapb_unregister() has typo and we failed to get lapb_list_lock.
rose_route.c:rose_remove_node()'s caller has rose_node_list_lock; so, this is 
dead lock.

Here's the fix.

===== net/lapb/lapb_iface.c 1.14 vs edited =====

--- 1.14/net/lapb/lapb_iface.c	2004-01-11 08:39:04 +09:00
+++ edited/net/lapb/lapb_iface.c	2004-07-02 17:23:27 +09:00

@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@
 	struct lapb_cb *lapb;
 	int rc = LAPB_BADTOKEN;
 
-	write_unlock_bh(&lapb_list_lock);
+	write_lock_bh(&lapb_list_lock);
 	lapb = __lapb_devtostruct(dev);
 	if (!lapb)
 		goto out;

===== net/rose/rose_route.c 1.12 vs edited =====

--- 1.12/net/rose/rose_route.c	2004-06-04 09:11:24 +09:00
+++ edited/net/rose/rose_route.c	2004-07-02 17:26:08 +09:00

@@ -206,7 +206,6 @@
 {
 	struct rose_node *s;
 
-	spin_lock_bh(&rose_node_list_lock);
 	if ((s = rose_node_list) == rose_node) {
 		rose_node_list = rose_node->next;
 		kfree(rose_node);

Thanks.

-- 
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project [off-list ref]
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA