| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:48:28 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net> To: Linda Walsh <lkml@...nx.org> CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs-oss <xfs@....sgi.com> Subject: Re: Lock debugging noise or real problem? Linda Walsh wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> the explanation for xfs_fsr, at least, is the same as the last time you >> brought it up ;) >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/86 >> -Eric >> > --- > Ah...Looks like the 1st xfs_fsr prob is the same as the one 6 months > ago...(sorry) > xfs_ilock & xfs_ilock > > But... the 3 imapds and the sort process were all 4 holding > xfs_ilock & shrink_icache_memory > > And the other two xfs_fsr's were holding different locks than the > 6-month-ago bug: > dio_get_page & xfs_ilock > Are these the same as well? > > I.e. looks like 3 possibly different probs: > #1 (same as 6 months ago)... > #2 (3)imapds & sort: holding xfs_ilock & shrink_icache > #3 xfs_fsr with two different locks: dio_get_page & xfs_ilock> http://www.google.com/search?q=xfs_fsr+dio_get_page+lockdep -> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00042.html I haven't looked closely at #2 but there have been so many lockdep reports for xfs, and so many explanations of why they don't always get along, you'll probably be able to find something with some searching. -Eric -- 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