linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:40:47 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep


* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:

> Currently it is allowed that work->func() does flush_workqueue() on 
> its own workqueue. So we have
> 
> 	run_workqueue()
> 		work->func()
> 			flush_workqueue()
> 				run_workqueue()
> 
> All but work->func() take wq->lockdep_map, I guess check_deadlock() 
> won't be happy.

yep.

> OTOH. Perhaps we can can forbid such a behaviour? Andrew, do you know 
> any good example of "keventd trying to flush its own queue" ?

i'd prefer to make the API a little bit stricter: such recursion is 
nasty. Btw., what mechanism prevents the second instance of 
run_workqueue() calling into a work->func() again?

	Ingo
-
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/