| 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: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:36:53 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> Cc: Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Dave Chinner <dgc@....com> Subject: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem) On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 09:06 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 18:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > It must be the locking in __driver_attach(), taking dev->parent->sem > > > then taking dev->sem .. Assuming those are different structures, why > > > does lockdep trigger? > > > > They aren't different, parent is a struct device again. > > It's different memory tho .. I wasn't sure how to term that .. The locks > are in two different memory location so it couldn't be recursive .. I'm > only asking for my own understanding .. I don't mind inspecting > potentially bad locking .. Yeah, it are different lock instances, however by virtue of sharing the same lock init site, they belong to the same lock class. Lockdep works by tracking class dependancies, not instance dependancies. By generalizing to classes it can detect locking errors before they actually occur. -- 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