| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802221757130.30955@jikos.suse.cz> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:01:33 +0100 (CET) From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> To: Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@...tmail.fm>, davem@...emloft.net cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: lockdep warning On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: > > > Any chance that > > > git revert 69cc64d8d92 > > > makes this report go away? > I've tested the patch and I no longer get that lock thing in my syslog. Thanks for verification. Hmm, I don't immediately see how this patch could make neigh->lock owner to change between lock and unlock ... I have skimmed through the solicit methods, and they don't seem to be doing anything nasty to neigh ... The scenario I was thinking about is that before 69cc64d8d92, if any of the _solicit methods could do anything bad to neigh struct, this warning wouldn't trigger, because the lock has been dropped before calling _solicit() and reacquired later, so no mismatch on ->current could happen, but now as long as the lock is held during _solicit() call, this would trigger on the next unlock. But I am not able to see anything like that in the code. Dave, do you have any idea? (the thread started at http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/22/105). -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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