| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:54:00 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Mark Lord <liml@....ca>, IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3-git7: scsi_device_unbusy: inconsistent lock state * Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote: > > > things may be allocated from that path, so we pass gfp_mask around. I'll > > > double check it tonight, but I don't currently see what could be wrong. > > > Would lockdep complain about: > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags); > > > ... > > > spin_unlock_irq(lock); > > > ... > > > spin_lock_irq(lock); > > > ... > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags); > > > > this is fine for lockdep IF and only IF there is no "out lock" held > > around this that requires irqs to be off. So if you do > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(lock1, flags); > > ... > > spin_lock_irqsave(lock2, flags); > > spin_unlock_irq(lock2) > > ... > > > > then lockdep WILL complain, and rightfully so, about a violation since > > lock1 gets violated here ;) > > Naturally, that is a bug fair and simple, nothing to do with lockdep. well, finding such locking bugs is the main purpose of lockdep, so there is at least some connection i'd say ;-) Ingo - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists