linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] rtmutex: Handle deadlock detection smarter

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:	Fri, 6 Jun 2014 07:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] rtmutex: Handle deadlock detection smarter

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:28:32 -0000
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> > @@ -1112,7 +1134,8 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_
> >  		return 1;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, detect_deadlock);
> > +	/* We enforce deadlock detection for futexes */
> > +	ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, 1);
> 
> Why bother with passing in detect_deadlock then?
> 
> Same goes for rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock().

Because that's part of the cleanup series to remove it and I did not
want mix stuff here.

--
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/