Hello.
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0407011747040.4015-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu,
1 Jul 2004 18:01:00 -0700 (PDT)), Yichen Xie <yxie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
|