linux-kernel - Re: Need lockdep help

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: <4755A457.5080405@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:02:47 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Need lockdep help

Alan Stern wrote, On 12/04/2007 04:17 PM:
...

> Furthermore, in this case deadlock isn't really impossible -- it could 
> occur if there were a bug somewhere else in the kernel.  So lockdep was 
> correct to warn that deadlock might occur.

Alan, if the scenario was like you described at the beginning, there was
no deadlock possible, unless some errors in the notifier. These #1-#3
threads were only helpful to guess what lockdep could 'think', but I
guess notifier doesn't use 2 rivaling threads for a wake, so, lockdep
probably needed additional information. And you really can't consider
any hypothetical kernel bugs here because then each lock is vulnerable.

Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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/