linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080317153314.GD5578@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:33:15 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	pj@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support

> I bet copy_hugetlb_page_range() is causing your complaints.  It takes
> the dest_mm->page_table_lock followed by src_mm->page_table_lock inside
> a loop and hasn't yet been converted to call spin_lock_nested().  A
> harmless false positive.

Yes. Looking at the warning I'm not sure why lockdep doesn't filter
it out automatically. I cannot think of a legitimate case where
a "possible recursive lock" with different lock addresses would be 
a genuine bug.

So instead of a false positive, it's more like a "always false" :)

> 
> > - hugemmap04 from LTP fails. Cause unknown currently
> 
> I am not sure how well LTP is tracking mainline development in this
> area.  How do these patches do with the libhugetlbfs test suite?  We are

I wasn't aware of that one.

-Andi
--
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/