linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i

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: <20080919084030.GB17592@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:40:30 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > in 7 days that's about 7000 random bootups, 20% of which had TINY_SHMEM 
> > enabled, half 32-bit, half 64-bit x86. It did not blow up in any way 
> > that would have prevented the kernel from building its next random 
> > version from within itself and it did not produce any kernel messages 
> > with various random kernel debug, compile and boot options.
> 
> Does anything in that workload actually use shared memory?

yes, X and a couple of other things i assume. It's the same test setup 
that found the lockdep assert - and lockdep needs actual use of the 
affected facilities.

	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/