linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics

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: <d120d5000609141211o76432bd3l82582ef3896e3be@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:11:32 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Jiri Kosina" <jikos@...os.cz>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Synaptics - fix lockdep warnings

On 9/14/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it is - as far as I understand the reason for not tracking
> > every lock individually is just that it is too expensive to do by
> > default.
>
> that is not correct. While it certainly plays a role,
> the other reason is that you can find out "class" level locking rules
> (such as inode->i_mutex comes before <other lock>) for all inodes at a
> time; eg no need to see every inode do this before you can find the
> deadlock.
>

OK, I can see that. However you must agree that for certain locks we
do want to track them individually, right?

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/