linux-kernel - Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)

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: <1197133577.1568.166.camel@jnielson-xp.ddns.mvista.com>
Date:	Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:06:16 -0800
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>
Subject: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)

On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 18:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > It must be the locking in __driver_attach(), taking dev->parent->sem
> > then taking dev->sem .. Assuming those are different structures, why
> > does lockdep trigger?
> 
> They aren't different, parent is a struct device again.

It's different memory tho .. I wasn't sure how to term that .. The locks
are in two different memory location so it couldn't be recursive .. I'm
only asking for my own understanding .. I don't mind inspecting
potentially bad locking ..

Daniel

--
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/