linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:20:07 +1000
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 000 of 4] Introduction

On Wednesday October 11, mingo@...e.hu wrote:
> >
> > I say "normally" because if a loop were created in the array->member 
> > hierarchy a deadlock could happen.  However that causes bigger 
> > problems than a deadlock and should be fixed independently.
> 
> ok to me. Sidenote: shouldnt we algorithmically forbid that "loop" 
> scenario from occuring, as that possibility is what causes lockdep to 
> complain about the worst-case scenario?

Yes we should.  Possibly we could use the linkage information set up
by bd_claim_by_kobject.  However I'm afraid that the locking required
to check that linkage safely will look very dead-lock prone to
lockdep.  I suspect that can be worked-around though.

NeilBrown
-
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/