linux-kernel - Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected

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]

Message-Id: <20060727015356.f01b5644.akpm@osdl.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:53:56 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
Cc:	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, eike-kernel@...tec.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aia21@...tab.net
Subject: Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:19:58 +0100
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk> wrote:

> b) is impossible for ntfs.

ntfs write() is already doing GFP_HIGHUSER allocations inside i_mutex.

Presumably there's some reason why it isn't deadlocking at present.  Could
be that we'll end up deciding to make lockdep shut up about cross-fs
i_mutex-takings, but that's a bit lame because if some other fs starts
taking i_mutex in the reclaim path we're exposed to ab/ba deadlocks, and
they won't be reported.

But sorry, we just cannot go and require that write()'s pagecache
allocations not be able to write dirty data, not be able to strip buffers
from clean pages and not be able to reclaim slab.
-
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/