linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc7 lockdep warning when poweroff

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: <20080116081155.GA10019@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:11:56 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc7 lockdep warning when poweroff


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > > The patch looks ok, one important thing to note is that it means 
> > > that all workqueues instantiated by the same __create_workqueue() 
> > > call-site share lock dependency chains - I'm unsure if that might 
> > > get us into trouble or not.
> > 
> > It doesn't seem to have so far ;) I don't think it should. If some 
> > code allocates a per-instance workqueue that's much like having an 
> > inode lock or so.
> 
> We had to split up the inode lock to per filesystem classes, just 
> because the lock chains were conflicting between them...

i.e. filesystems can legally have different locking rules wrt. i_lock. I 
dont really like it (we should have as simple locking rules as possible) 
but it is the VFS status quo :)

	Ingo
--
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/