[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070928122154.GD25726@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:54 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] lockdep: syscall exit check
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:14:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 14:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > +void lockdep_sys_exit(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *curr = current;
> > > +
> > > + if (unlikely(curr->lockdep_depth)) {
> > > + if (!debug_locks_off())
> > > + return;
> > > + printk("\n========================================\n");
> > > + printk( "[ BUG: lock held at syscall exit time! ]\n");
> > > + printk( "----------------------------------------\n");
> > > + printk("%s/%d is leaving the kernel with locks still held!\n",
> > > + curr->comm, curr->pid);
> > > + lockdep_print_held_locks(curr);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > By the way, the s390 patch I just posted also checks if we hold any locks
> > when returning from interrupt context to user space. Maybe the above text
> > could be changed to "lock held when returning to user space" ?
>
> Good idea, I'll look at doing the same for i386/x86_64. Traps (page
> faults) would also make sense I guess.
Yes, traps and syscalls have the same exit path on s390. So we do that
alreasy as well.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists