From 9a2239b1174bdf0952a21ed328cd74240d2dd173 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 20:36:13 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] lockdep: fix ide/proc interaction rmmod/3080 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (proc_subdir_lock){--..}, at: [] remove_proc_entry+0x40/0x191 and this task is already holding: (ide_lock){++..}, at: [] ide_unregister_subdriver+0x39/0xc8 which would create a new lock dependency: (ide_lock){++..} -> (proc_subdir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (ide_lock){++..} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6b [] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x22/0x32 [] ide_intr+0x17/0x1a9 [] handle_IRQ_event+0x20/0x4d [] __do_IRQ+0x94/0xef [] do_IRQ+0x9e/0xbd to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (proc_subdir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6b [] _spin_lock+0x19/0x28 [] xlate_proc_name+0x1b/0x99 [] proc_create+0x46/0xdf [] create_proc_entry+0x62/0xa5 [] proc_misc_init+0x1c/0x1d2 [] proc_root_init+0x4c/0xe9 [] start_kernel+0x294/0x3b3 Move ide_remove_proc_entries() out from under ide_lock; there is nothing that indicates that this is needed. In specific, the call to ide_add_proc_entries() is unprotected, and there is nothing else in the file using the respective ->proc fields. Also the lock order around destroy_proc_ide_interface() suggests this. Alan sayeth: proc_ide_write_settings walks the setting list under ide_setting_sem, read ditto. remove_proc_entry is doing proc side housekeeping. Looks fine to me, although that old code is such a mess anything could be going on. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Alan Cox Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- Reading git-format-patch failed