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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:52:43 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

On 07/05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
> 
> > 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?

Nothing. work->func() can re-schedule itself and then call flush_workqueue().
We have a "morton gets to eat his hat" check in run_workqueue() though.

So I agree with you, such recursion is indeed bad. Can we forbid this?
In that case this patch is even more perfect :)

Oleg.

-
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/