linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workaround minor lockdep bug triggered by mm_take_all

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:	Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:05:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
	hugh@...itas.com, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workaround minor lockdep bug triggered by
	mm_take_all_locks

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 11:56 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > NAK, come-on, you didn't even bother to look at the available
>  > annotations..
> 
> Agree that this trylock-in-a-loop is a horrible hack that should never
> be merged.
> 
> However I wonder what you think the right way to annotate the
> potentially unbounded number of locks taken in mm_take_all_locks() is?

Good question, one which I don't currently have an answer for - see my
other mail why getting rid of the MAX_LOCK_DEPTH limitation is hard.

I'll give it another serious go tomorrow (if nothing else preempts me).

--
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/