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:	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)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ