linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock

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]

Date:	Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock



On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> As to the regression reported by Marcin; what happens is that we invoke
> printk() while holding the xtime lock for writing. printk() will call
> wake_up_klogd() which tries to enqueue klogd on some rq.
> 
> The known deadlock here is calling printk() while holding rq->lock, which
> would then try to recusively lock the rq again when trying to wake klogd.

Ok.

Right now, however, I think that for 2.6.25 I'll just remove the printk. 

And for the long haul, I really don't think the solution is 
"printk_nowakup()", because this is going to happen again when somebody 
doesn't realize the code is called with the rq lock held, and it's going 
to be a bitch to debug.

I just don't think this is maintainable. 

		Linus
--
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/