From 0bf52b981770cbf006323bab5177f2858a196766 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:16:58 +0000 Subject: net: Fix spinlock use in alloc_netdev_mq() -tip testing found this lockdep warning: [ 2.272010] calling net_dev_init+0x0/0x164 @ 1 [ 2.276033] device class 'net': registering [ 2.280191] INFO: trying to register non-static key. [ 2.284005] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. [ 2.284005] turning off the locking correctness validator. [ 2.284005] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-rc5-tip #1145 [ 2.284005] Call Trace: [ 2.284005] [<7958eb4e>] ? printk+0xf/0x11 [ 2.284005] [<7904f83c>] __lock_acquire+0x11b/0x622 [ 2.284005] [<7908c9b7>] ? alloc_debug_processing+0xf9/0x144 [ 2.284005] [<7904e2be>] ? mark_held_locks+0x3a/0x52 [ 2.284005] [<7908dbc4>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xa8/0x13f [ 2.284005] [<7904e475>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xa2/0xc3 [ 2.284005] [<7904fdf6>] lock_acquire+0xb3/0xd0 [ 2.284005] [<79489678>] ? alloc_netdev_mq+0xf5/0x1ad [ 2.284005] [<79591514>] _spin_lock_bh+0x2d/0x5d [ 2.284005] [<79489678>] ? alloc_netdev_mq+0xf5/0x1ad [ 2.284005] [<79489678>] alloc_netdev_mq+0xf5/0x1ad [ 2.284005] [<793a38f2>] ? loopback_setup+0x0/0x74 [ 2.284005] [<798eecd0>] loopback_net_init+0x20/0x5d [ 2.284005] [<79483efb>] register_pernet_device+0x23/0x4b [ 2.284005] [<798f5c9f>] net_dev_init+0x115/0x164 [ 2.284005] [<7900104f>] do_one_initcall+0x4a/0x11a [ 2.284005] [<798f5b8a>] ? net_dev_init+0x0/0x164 [ 2.284005] [<79066f6d>] ? register_irq_proc+0x8c/0xa8 [ 2.284005] [<798cc29a>] do_basic_setup+0x42/0x52 [ 2.284005] [<798cc30a>] kernel_init+0x60/0xa1 [ 2.284005] [<798cc2aa>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0xa1 [ 2.284005] [<79003e03>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 [ 2.284078] device: 'lo': device_add [ 2.288248] initcall net_dev_init+0x0/0x164 returned 0 after 11718 usecs [ 2.292010] calling neigh_init+0x0/0x66 @ 1 [ 2.296010] initcall neigh_init+0x0/0x66 returned 0 after 0 usecs it's using an zero-initialized spinlock. This is a side-effect of: dev_unicast_init(dev); in alloc_netdev_mq() making use of dev->addr_list_lock. The device has just been allocated freshly, it's not accessible anywhere yet so no locking is needed at all - in fact it's wrong to lock it here (the lock isnt initialized yet). This bug was introduced via: | commit a6ac65db2329e7685299666f5f7b6093c7b0f3a0 | Date: Thu Jul 30 01:06:12 2009 +0000 | | net: restore the original spinlock to protect unicast list Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Jiri Pirko Tested-by: Mark Brown Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- net/core/dev.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c index 43e61ba7bd95..6a94475aee85 100644 --- a/net/core/dev.c +++ b/net/core/dev.c @@ -4007,9 +4007,7 @@ static void dev_unicast_flush(struct net_device *dev) static void dev_unicast_init(struct net_device *dev) { - netif_addr_lock_bh(dev); __hw_addr_init(&dev->uc); - netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev); } -- cgit v1.2.3