Message ID | 1347408735-25745-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Not Applicable, archived |
Headers | show |
On 2012-09-12 2:12 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> > > When call_crda() is called we kick off a witch hunt search > for the same regulatory domain on our internal regulatory > database and that work gets scheuled on a workqueue, this > is done while the cfg80211_mutex is held. If that workqueue > kicks off it will first lock reg_regdb_search_mutex and > later cfg80211_mutex but to ensure two CPUs will not contend > against cfg80211_mutex the right thing to do is to have the > reg_regdb_search() wait until the cfg80211_mutex is let go. > > The lockdep report is pasted below. > > cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain > > ====================================================== > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 3.3.8 #3 Tainted: G O > ------------------------------------------------------- > kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock: > (cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211] > > but task is already holding lock: > (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646828>] set_regdom+0x710/0x808 [cfg80211] > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #2 (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}: > [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 > [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c > [<81645778>] is_world_regdom+0x9f8/0xc74 [cfg80211] > > -> #1 (reg_mutex#2){+.+...}: > [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 > [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c > [<8164539c>] is_world_regdom+0x61c/0xc74 [cfg80211] > > -> #0 (cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}: > [<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc > [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 > [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c > [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211] > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Chain exists of: > cfg80211_mutex --> reg_mutex#2 --> reg_regdb_search_mutex > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex); > lock(reg_mutex#2); > lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex); > lock(cfg80211_mutex); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/235: > #0: (events){.+.+..}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460 > #1: (reg_regdb_work){+.+...}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460 > #2: (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646828>] set_regdom+0x710/0x808 [cfg80211] > > stack backtrace: > Call Trace: > [<80290fd4>] dump_stack+0x8/0x34 > [<80291bc4>] print_circular_bug+0x2ac/0x2d8 > [<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc > [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 > [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c > [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211] > > Reported-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> With this patch I get a slightly different report: [ 9.480000] cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] ====================================================== [ 9.490000] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [ 9.490000] 3.3.8 #4 Tainted: G O [ 9.490000] ------------------------------------------------------- [ 9.490000] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock: [ 9.490000] (reg_mutex#2){+.+...}, at: [<8164617c>] set_regdom+0x64/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] but task is already holding lock: [ 9.490000] (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646830>] set_regdom+0x718/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] -> #1 (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}: [ 9.490000] [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [ 9.490000] [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [ 9.490000] [<81645778>] is_world_regdom+0x9f8/0xc74 [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] -> #0 (reg_mutex#2){+.+...}: [ 9.490000] [<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc [ 9.490000] [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [ 9.490000] [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [ 9.490000] [<8164617c>] set_regdom+0x64/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [<816468ac>] set_regdom+0x794/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] other info that might help us debug this: [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] CPU0 CPU1 [ 9.490000] ---- ---- [ 9.490000] lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex); [ 9.490000] lock(reg_mutex#2); [ 9.490000] lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex); [ 9.490000] lock(reg_mutex#2); [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] 4 locks held by kworker/0:1/235: [ 9.490000] #0: (events){.+.+..}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460 [ 9.490000] #1: (reg_regdb_work){+.+...}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460 [ 9.490000] #2: (cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646824>] set_regdom+0x70c/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] #3: (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646830>] set_regdom+0x718/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [ 9.490000] stack backtrace: [ 9.490000] Call Trace: [ 9.490000] [<80290fd4>] dump_stack+0x8/0x34 [ 9.490000] [<80291bc4>] print_circular_bug+0x2ac/0x2d8 [ 9.490000] [<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc [ 9.490000] [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [ 9.490000] [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [ 9.490000] [<8164617c>] set_regdom+0x64/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] [<816468ac>] set_regdom+0x794/0x80c [cfg80211] [ 9.490000] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
====================================================== [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 3.3.8 #3 Tainted: G O ------------------------------------------------------- kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock: (cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211] but task is already holding lock: (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646828>] set_regdom+0x710/0x808 [cfg80211] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}: [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [<81645778>] is_world_regdom+0x9f8/0xc74 [cfg80211] -> #1 (reg_mutex#2){+.+...}: [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [<8164539c>] is_world_regdom+0x61c/0xc74 [cfg80211] -> #0 (cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}: [<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211] other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: cfg80211_mutex --> reg_mutex#2 --> reg_regdb_search_mutex Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex); lock(reg_mutex#2); lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex); lock(cfg80211_mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/235: #0: (events){.+.+..}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460 #1: (reg_regdb_work){+.+...}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460 #2: (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646828>] set_regdom+0x710/0x808 [cfg80211] stack backtrace: Call Trace: [<80290fd4>] dump_stack+0x8/0x34 [<80291bc4>] print_circular_bug+0x2ac/0x2d8 [<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc [<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88 [<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211] Reported-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> --- net/wireless/reg.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c index 5efd6f6..a04d90c 100644 --- a/net/wireless/reg.c +++ b/net/wireless/reg.c @@ -351,6 +351,8 @@ static void reg_regdb_search(struct work_struct *work) const struct ieee80211_regdomain *curdom, *regdom; int i, r; + mutex_lock(&cfg80211_mutex); + mutex_lock(®_regdb_search_mutex); while (!list_empty(®_regdb_search_list)) { request = list_first_entry(®_regdb_search_list, @@ -365,9 +367,7 @@ static void reg_regdb_search(struct work_struct *work) r = reg_copy_regd(®dom, curdom); if (r) break; - mutex_lock(&cfg80211_mutex); set_regdom(regdom); - mutex_unlock(&cfg80211_mutex); break; } } @@ -375,6 +375,8 @@ static void reg_regdb_search(struct work_struct *work) kfree(request); } mutex_unlock(®_regdb_search_mutex); + + mutex_unlock(&cfg80211_mutex); } static DECLARE_WORK(reg_regdb_work, reg_regdb_search);
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> When call_crda() is called we kick off a witch hunt search for the same regulatory domain on our internal regulatory database and that work gets scheuled on a workqueue, this is done while the cfg80211_mutex is held. If that workqueue kicks off it will first lock reg_regdb_search_mutex and later cfg80211_mutex but to ensure two CPUs will not contend against cfg80211_mutex the right thing to do is to have the reg_regdb_search() wait until the cfg80211_mutex is let go. The lockdep report is pasted below. cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain