linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep

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:	Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:36:12 +0000
From:	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
To:	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:40:30PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> (Note comment in code "It is permissible to free the struct
> work_struct from inside the function that is called from it".)
 
I don't understand yet how lockdep behaves if the work struct gets
reused and the reused one finishes first.

I renamed the kcryptd functions today in an attempt to disentangle this
code a bit more.

  - io->pending reference counting looks correct (though used
inconsistently when comparing READ with WRITE)

  - But what happens if kcryptd_crypt_write_convert_loop() calls
INIT_WORK/queue_work twice?

Alasdair
-- 
agk@...hat.com
-
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/