Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...>
Cc: Roland Dreier <roland.list@...>, Tziporet Koren <tziporet@...>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>, <general@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 11:25 am

On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 15:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

It usually indicates a spinlock is not properly initialized. Like
__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED() used in a non-static context, use
spin_lock_init() in these cases.

However looking at the code, ipoib_neight_destructor only uses
&priv->lock, and that seems to get properly initialized in ipoib_setup()
using spin_lock_init().

So either there are other sites that instanciate those objects and
forget about the lock init, or the object is corrupted (use after free?)


-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: soft l..., Michael S. Tsirkin, (Sun Mar 11, 9:50 am)
Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: so..., Michael S. Tsirkin, (Sun Mar 11, 11:04 am)
Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: so..., Michael S. Tsirkin, (Sun Mar 11, 11:22 am)
Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: so..., Peter Zijlstra, (Sun Mar 11, 11:25 am)
Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: so..., Michael S. Tsirkin, (Sun Mar 11, 12:12 pm)
Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: so..., Michael S. Tsirkin, (Mon Mar 12, 9:29 am)
Re: lockdep question (was Re: IPoIB caused a kernel: BUG: so..., Michael S. Tsirkin, (Mon Mar 12, 10:20 am)