Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking
Commit 9c921c22 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment