[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071030153556.3c6cfa29@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:35:56 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, stable@...nel.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: [PATCH, RESEND] locks: fix possible infinite loop in posix
deadlock detection
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:20:02 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...i.umich.edu>
>
> It's currently possible to send posix_locks_deadlock() into an infinite
> loop (under the BKL).
>
> For now, fix this just by bailing out after a few iterations. We may
> want to fix this in a way that better clarifies the semantics of
> deadlock detection. But that will take more time, and this minimal fix
> is probably adequate for any realistic scenario, and is simple enough to
> be appropriate for applying to stable kernels now.
>
> Thanks to George Davis for reporting the problem.
>
> Cc: "George G. Davis" <gdavis@...sta.com>
> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...i.umich.edu>
Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
Its a good fix for now and I doubt any real world user has that complex a
locking pattern to break.
-
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