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: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:55:38 +0100 From: "Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org> To: "Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> Cc: "Jarek Poplawski" <jarkao2@...il.com>, "Alan Stern" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, "Greg KH" <gregkh@...e.de>, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, "David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>, "Kernel development list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] driver-core : convert semaphore to mutex in struct class On Jan 18, 2008 2:42 AM, Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008 7:26 AM, Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:31:55PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16:30AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your meaning isn't clear. Do you mean that your patch doesn't generate > > > > > > > > any lockdep warnings at all? Or do you mean that it generates a single > > > > > > > > lockdep warning at boot time and then no more warnings afterward? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I means the latter one. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's very bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > For each type of violation, lockdep only gives one error message. So > > > > > > the fact that you get one message at boot time and then no more doesn't > > > > > > mean the code is almost right -- it probably means the code has lots of > > > > > > errors and you're seeing only the first one. > > > > > > > > > > I hope it's better than this: lockdep really stops checking after first > > > > > warning, but I've understood from David's description that after fixing > > > > > this one place lockdep seems to be pleased. > > > > > > > > That isn't what Dave said above; he said that lockdep produces a single > > > > warning at bootup. If he did mention anything about one place being > > > > fixed up or lockdep being pleased, it was a while back and I've lost > > > > track of it. > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly the nature of the warning was that a method > > > > routine for one class (called with the class's mutex held) was creating > > > > a second class and locking that class's mutex. In principle this is > > > > perfectly legal and should be allowed for arbitrary depths of nesting, > > > > even though it is the sort of thing lockdep is currently unable to > > > > handle. > > > > > > You are definitely right! After first reading Dave's description I got > > > it the same way, but after re-reading I probably was misled with this > > > "thus"! Only now I've had a look at this warning and there is really > > > mutex_lock_nested(). Sorry Alan! > > > > But, on the other hand, mutex_lock() is really mutex_lock_nested(), and > > after second checking this lockdep warning from Jan. 3, it seems > > impossible it was get after this patch... > > > > Dave, could you please answer with full sentence if there is any lockdep > > warning possible after applying these 1-7/7 patches, and if so, attach > > current warning? Otherwise, I'll have apologized for this everybody from > > the list soon! > > After digging the class usage code again, I found that the only > possible double lock place is the class_interface_register/unregister > in which the class_device api could be called. > > The scsi and pcmcia use the class_interface api, I just found the > warning above caused by scsi part then. > > So I think I will need to use mutex_lock_nesting for the > class_device_* functions. All "struct class_device" stuff will go away very soon, and only "struct device" will stay. The conversion for remaining users is already in -mm. Only SCSI and IB are missing, but experimental patches for these exist already. Kay -- 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