linux-kernel - Re: lockdep and debug objects together are broken?

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]

Date:	Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:54:51 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep and debug objects together are broken?


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 12:42 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > So by the time you'd rearm, there's a lot of tasks with no proper 
> > locking state built up. We might be able to re-arm via 
> > stop_machine_run perhaps.
> 
> Won't work either, kstopmachine only preempts everybody. We'd require 
> something stronger.

indeed - mutexes wont be covered.

> What we need is a point where there's guaranteed no locks held, for 
> regular tasks that would be a trip to userspace and back, but for kernel 
> tasks that's a bit harder -- does the freezer stuff guarantee this?

yes, that might be doable.

Sounds very fragile though.

	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/