linux-kernel - Re: lockdep: how to tell it multiple pte locks is OK?

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:	Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:58:53 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep: how to tell it multiple pte locks is OK?

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:31:33 -0700

> I'm presume I'm the first person to try holding multiple pte locks at
> once, so there's no existing locking order for these locks.  I'm
> always traversing and locking the pagetable in virtual address order
> (and this seems like a sane-enough rule for anyone else who wants to
> hold multiple pte locks).

I'm not sure that's a valid assumption in light of things like sharing
pagetables between processes etc etc..
(granted, that one is out of tree right now but I still hope it'll go
in some day:)
-
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/