| 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: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:20:30 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 05:16:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > sysrq-d: http://fpaste.org/ow9O/ > > Ugh. I'm adding PeterZ to the cc, just to see if he can make more sense of it. > > Peter, is there no way to make the lock thing print not just the lock > class name, but also the pointer to the actual *instance* of the lock > held? > > Also, it's a bit unclear to me, but I *think* that most of those users > don't actually "hold" the lock - they are waiting for it. Yes/no? Has to be, unless something _very_ odd is going on... Just how many ->s_vfs_rename_mutex are there on that box? > Does > the lockdep information have the capability to distinguish between > "waiting for" vs "actually successfully owns the lock"? Another question re lockdep - does it scream loudly if process returns to userland without having released some lock? I hope so, but I've never checked that... ;-/ -- 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