linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710282238580.18815@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:	Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:45:17 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"George G. Davis" <gdavis@...sta.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> You can't fix the false EDEADLK detection without solving the halting
> problem.  Best of luck with that.

Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this? I don't see how 
detecting loops in graph relates to solving halting problem.

Of course the halting problem can be transformed to deadlock-detection 
problem, but this relates to static code analysis, right? Not anything we 
are interested in, i.e. tracking things in runtime and detecting loops in 
simple dependency graphs.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
-
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/