| 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: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:11:25 -0400 From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: lockdep, false positive ? Hi Peter, On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Yes, if both locks are of the same class it will report this. Lockdep > does lock chain validation on classes, never on individual locks. > > A class usually consists of all locks that share the lock init site; but > there are ways to explicity set another class. > > In case of these recursions we have helpers like spin_lock_nested(&lock, > subclass) that allow you to annotate these. These sub-classes must then > always be taken in the same order; subclass < 8. > > In this case its probably easier to explicity set a class, as the > nesting is not exposed to the input layer, so it doesn't know about it. > Is there a way in lockdep to mark all instances of a given lock as distinct? I'd rather do that in input core once and be done with it. Also another question I've been meaning to ask - we have lockdep annotations in serio code and they work fine first time around but if you reload psmouse module lockdep will barf if you have SYnaptics touchpad with pass-through port. What gives? -- Dmitry -- 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