| 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, 28 Dec 2009 08:27:00 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de> Cc: xfs@....sgi.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 01:07:49PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > Hi, > > during tests with bonnie++ on an XFS filesystem, the warning below is > issued. From the message's timestamps, the warning occurs during the > "Create files in sequential order" phase. I've put a few more details and > the config here: http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.33-rc2/xfs_ilock > > Something similar has been reported in http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/20/269 > (for 2.6.29-rc5) and a fix for this false positive made its way into > mainline as ed93ec3907f063268ced18728d0653f6199d100c - so I take it this > is a different issue then? This is the usual false positive that is detected - XFS takes locks in reclaim that it also takes in non-reclaim paths. The reclaim path from kswapd inverts lock ordering and so we get this report. This case has never been a deadlock case because an inode in reclaim cannot be referenced by any other path, so once again it is a false positive.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com -- 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