linux-kernel - Re: Incorrect circular locking dependency?

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:	Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:50:04 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux filesystem caching discussion list 
	<linux-cachefs@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	oleg <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Incorrect circular locking dependency?

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> Creating a new class for your second workqueue might help,

I only have one workqueue.  The problem is there are two waitqueues, but
init_waitqueue_head() always sets q->lock to the same class.

> we'd have to pass a second key through __create_workqueue_key() and pass
> that into init_cpu_workqueue() and apply it to cwq->lock using
> lockdep_set_class() and co.

Actually, wouldn't just making init_cpu_workqueue() apply a class to
cwq->more_work that's common to all workqueues suffice?  Or even, have
init_waitqueue_head() apply an alternate class to q->lock?

David
--
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/