linux-kernel - Re: _cpu_down deadlock [was Re: 2.6.19-rc1-mm1]

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:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:51:12 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: _cpu_down deadlock [was Re: 2.6.19-rc1-mm1]

On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 09:46 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday October 11, akpm@...l.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > So A waits on B and C, C waits on B, B waits on A.
> > > Deadlock.
> > 
> > Except the entire operation is serialised by the the two top-level callers
> > (cpu_up() and cpu_down()) taking mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock).  Can
> > lockdep be taught about that?
> 
> So you are saying that even though we have locking sequences
>   A -> B  and B -> A,
> that cannot - in this case - cause a deadlock as both sequences only
> ever happen under a third exclusive lock C,
> So when lockdep records a lock-dependency A -> B, it should also
> record a list of locks that are *always* held when that dependency
> occurs.

in that case... why are A and B there *at all* ?


-
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/