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: <20071028234457.0011d8b7@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:44:57 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
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
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:38:14 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 09:38:55PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > It doesn't require the system to detect it, only mandate what to return
> > > if it does detect it.
> > 
> > We should be detecting at least the obvious case.
> 
> What is the obvious case?  A task that has never called clone()?

Simple AB BA I would have thought obvious. Clone as has been said several
times now is irrelevant as the standard is about *processes* [in the SuS
sense]
-
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/