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: Wed, 11 May 2022 08:26:33 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> 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 Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:12:54AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2022 08:38:38 +0900 > Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote: > > > Yes, I was talking about A and L'. > > > > > detect that regardless of L. A nested lock associates the the nesting with > > > > When I checked Lockdep code, L' with depth n + 1 and L' with depth n > > have different classes in Lockdep. > > If that's the case, then that's a bug in lockdep. Yes, agree. I should've said 'Lockdep doesn't detect it currently.' rather than 'Lockdep can't detect it.'. I also think we make it for this case by fixing the bug in Lockdep. > > > > That's why I said Lockdep cannot detect it. By any chance, has it > > changed so as to consider this case? Or am I missing something? > > No, it's not that lockdep cannot detect it, it should detect it. If it is > not detecting it, then we need to fix that. Yes. Byungchul > > -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists