linux-kernel - Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at cleanup_workqueue

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: <20090520135537.GA18480@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2009 15:55:37 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at
	cleanup_workqueue_thread

On 05/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 15:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Breaking the setup_lock -> cpu_add_remove_lock dependency seems
> > > sufficient.
> >
> > Hmm. What do you mean? Afaics setup_lock -> cpu_add_remove_lock
> > is not a problem?
>
> >From what I could see that is the only dependency that makes
> cpu_add_remove_lock nest under "events" workqueue 'lock', which is what
> is generating the deadlock.

But cpu_add_remove_lock does not participate in this deadlock, see
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124274977707363 ?

Perhaps you mean something else, could you spell in that case?

Oleg.

--
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/