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]

Date:	Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:38:26 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	"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
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection

> > The spec and SYSV certainly ignore threading in this situation and you
> > know that perfectly well (or did in 2004)
> 
> The discussion petered out (or that mailing list archive lost articles
> from the thread) without any kind of resolution, or indeed interest.

I think the resolution was that the EDEADLK stayed.

> What is your suggestion for handling this problem?  As it is now, the
> kernel 'detects' deadlock where there is none, which doesn't seem
> allowed by SuSv3 either

Re-read the spec. The EDEADLK doesn't account for threads, only processes.

Alan
-
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/