linux-kernel - Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

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:	Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:01:01 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 07:19:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Looks to me that the mutex_lock() in _notifier_call_chain needs to be a
> mutex_lock_nested().

> The "_nested()" versions are when you have the same type of mutex taken
> but belonging to two different instances. Like you have here:

What's a mutex type?  I have to say this is the first time I've heard of
mutex types and the documentation in mutex.c and mutex-design.txt isn't
precisely verbose on what mutex_lock_nested() is for or how one would
pick subclass.
--
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/