linux-kernel - Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:36:29 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 08:27:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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....

This should be gone in 2.6.33-rc as we now tell lockdep about resetting
the dependency graph for the iolock once entering the inode reclaim path.
--
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/