linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep

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: <1183557594.3812.29.camel@johannes.berg>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:59:54 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Sattler <tsattler@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep

On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 14:21 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> well, in this case the lock/unlock should nest perfectly (i.e. it should 
> always be balanced perfectly), so indeed calling with nested==1 leads to 
> stricter checking.
> 
> non-nested unlocks occur when people do stuff like:
> 
> 	spin_lock(&lock1);
> 	spin_lock(&lock2);
> 	spin_unlock(&lock1);
> 	spin_unlock(&lock2);
> 
> the first unlock is not 'nested perfectly'. Now for the workqueue 
> dep_map this shouldnt be a legal combination, right?

I don't think so, will change to use nested==1.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)