Re: mmotm 2009-08-04-14-22 uploaded
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2009-08-05 07:14:52
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
networking [general], the rest · Maintainers:
"David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Linus Torvalds
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2009-08-05 · Re: mmotm 2009-08-04-14-22 uploaded · Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Dave Young a écrit :
Hi andrew, I see following lockdep warning with this release: [ 0.474144] INFO: trying to register non-static key. [ 0.474144] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. [ 0.474144] turning off the locking correctness validator. [ 0.474144] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-rc5-mm1 #7 [ 0.474144] Call Trace: [ 0.474144] [<c1047f1e>] register_lock_class+0x58/0x241 [ 0.474144] [<c1049ab1>] __lock_acquire+0xac/0xb73 [ 0.474144] [<c1076eb5>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xe2/0x483 [ 0.474144] [<c1048b64>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1c7 [ 0.474144] [<c1048b64>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1c7 [ 0.474144] [<c1048d50>] ? mark_held_locks+0x43/0x5b [ 0.474144] [<c10940a6>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xac/0x11b [ 0.474144] [<c104a615>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0xc0 [ 0.474144] [<c12b8b96>] ? netif_addr_lock_bh+0xd/0xf [ 0.474144] [<c1330feb>] _spin_lock_bh+0x20/0x2f [ 0.474144] [<c12b8b96>] ? netif_addr_lock_bh+0xd/0xf [ 0.474144] [<c12b8b96>] netif_addr_lock_bh+0xd/0xf [ 0.474144] [<c12bc3c3>] alloc_netdev_mq+0xf9/0x1a5 [ 0.474144] [<c121f016>] ? loopback_setup+0x0/0x74 [ 0.474144] [<c1578d49>] loopback_net_init+0x20/0x5d [ 0.474144] [<c12b7907>] register_pernet_operations+0x13/0x15 [ 0.474144] [<c12b7970>] register_pernet_device+0x1f/0x47 [ 0.474144] [<c157ee8d>] net_dev_init+0xfe/0x14d [ 0.474144] [<c1001137>] do_one_initcall+0x4a/0x11a [ 0.474144] [<c157ed8f>] ? net_dev_init+0x0/0x14d [ 0.474144] [<c1067e00>] ? register_irq_proc+0x64/0xa8 [ 0.474144] [<c1067e97>] ? init_irq_proc+0x53/0x60 [ 0.474144] [<c1557535>] kernel_init+0x129/0x17a [ 0.474144] [<c155740c>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x17a [ 0.474144] [<c1003d47>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 --
Hmm, it seems addr_list_lock is not initialized at the right place... commit a6ac65db addded a netif_addr_lock_bh() in dev_unicast_init() We initialize dev->addr_list_lock in register_netdevice(), we should init it earlier, right after allocation and before dev_unicast_init() But dev->type being 0, we probably cannot call netdev_set_addr_lockdep_class() at this point... David, what do you think ? Is it safe to call netdev_set_addr_lockdep_class() in register_netdevice(), after lock being used one time in dev_unicast_init() ? Thank you [PATCH] net: Init dev->addr_list_lock in alloc_netdev_mq() We initialize dev->addr_list_lock in register_netdevice(), we should init it earlier, right after allocation and before dev_unicast_init() Reported-by: Dave Young <redacted> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <redacted> ---
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 43e61ba..e50356b 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c@@ -4728,7 +4728,6 @@ int register_netdevice(struct net_device *dev) BUG_ON(dev->reg_state != NETREG_UNINITIALIZED); BUG_ON(!net); - spin_lock_init(&dev->addr_list_lock); netdev_set_addr_lockdep_class(dev); netdev_init_queue_locks(dev);
@@ -5106,6 +5105,7 @@ struct net_device *alloc_netdev_mq(int sizeof_priv, const char *name, dev = PTR_ALIGN(p, NETDEV_ALIGN); dev->padded = (char *)dev - (char *)p; + spin_lock_init(&dev->addr_list_lock); if (dev_addr_init(dev)) goto free_tx;