linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.17-rc6-mm1/pktcdvd - BUG: possible circular locking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:29:13 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Osterlund <petero2@...ia.com>
Cc:	Laurent Riffard <laurent.riffard@...e.fr>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	axboe@...e.de
Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc6-mm1/pktcdvd - BUG: possible circular locking


> 
> In the first call chain, do_open -> pkt_open, the bd_mutex object that
> is being locked corresponds to a pktcdvd block device, because those
> are the only devices that have their open method set to pkt_open.
> 
> In the second call chain, pkt_ctl_ioctl -> pkt_new_dev -> do_open, the
> bd_mutex object that is being locked *does not* correspond to a
> pktcdvd block device, because pkt_new_dev will bail out with a "Can't
> chain pktcdvd devices" error if you call it with "dev" set to a
> pktcdvd device.
> 
> Therefore, there is no AB-BA deadlock possibility. The locking
> dependencies are A -> B and B -> A', where it is known that A, B and
> A' are all different.
> 
> So the claim from the lockdep code, "BUG: possible circular locking
> deadlock detected!", is a false alarm.

ok I'll try to find a annotation for that that works
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/