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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:47:12 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com, johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, willy@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org, minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, airlied@...ux.ie, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com, melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 00/21] DEPT(Dependency Tracker) On Mon, 9 May 2022 09:16:37 +0900 Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote: > CASE 2. > > lock L with depth n > lock A > lock_nested L' with depth n + 1 > ... > unlock L' > unlock A > unlock L > > This case is allowed by Lockdep. > This case is *NOT* allowed by DEPT cuz it's a *DEADLOCK*. > > --- > > The following scenario would explain why CASE 2 is problematic. > > THREAD X THREAD Y > > lock L with depth n > lock L' with depth n > lock A > lock A > lock_nested L' with depth n + 1 I'm confused by what exactly you are saying is a deadlock above. Are you saying that lock A and L' are inversed? If so, lockdep had better detect that regardless of L. A nested lock associates the the nesting with the same type of lock. That is, in lockdep nested tells lockdep not to trigger on the L and L' but it will not ignore that A was taken. -- Steve > lock_nested L'' with depth n + 1 > ... ... > unlock L' unlock L'' > unlock A unlock A > unlock L unlock L'
Powered by blists - more mailing lists