linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links

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: <m1vde57c11.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:03:38 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links

Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On 02/10/2010 11:08 AM, Américo Wang wrote:
>> This bug report is new for me. Recently we received lots of sysfs lockdep
>> warnings, I am working on a patch to fix all the bogus ones.
>> 
>> However, this one is _not_ similar to the other cases, as you decribed.
>> This patch could fix the problem, but not a good fix, IMO. We need more
>> work in sysfs layer to fix this kind of things. I will take care of this.
>
> Can't we just give each s_active lock a separate class?  Would that be
> too costly?

When I asked the question earlier I was told that that locking classes
require static storage.  Where would that static storage come from?

Eric
--
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/