linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to destroy

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:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:25:59 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to
	destroy_workqueue()

On 03/31, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>
> This fixes a lockdep warning when invoking destroy_workqueue(),
> because the lockdep annotations are invoked under cpu_add_remove_lock.

Confused. Why does lockdep complains?

> So, move the lockdep annotations before taking cpu_add_remove_lock
> in destroy_workqueue(), this will not affect the original purpose
> of adding them for destroy_workqueue() etc.
>
> However, it will affect another caller of cleanup_workqueue_thread(),
> that is, workqueue_cpu_callback(). This should be fine, because there
> are no other cases than cpu hotplug could call it.

OK, but nobody should take cpu_maps_update_begin() under wq->lockdep_map,
in particular work->func() must not.

I must have missed something, but it seems to me this patch tries to
supress the valid warning.

Could you please clarify?

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/