linux-kernel - Re: lockdep false positive? -- firewire-core transaction timer vs. scsi-core host lock

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]

Message-ID: <4C6BDD77.5040301@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:17:43 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep false positive? -- firewire-core transaction timer vs.
 scsi-core host lock

Stefan Richter wrote:
> Johannes Berg wrote:
>> I'm convinced it's a false positive though, question is how to shut it
>> up :-)
> 
> Is there anyway to differentiate the lockdep naming of shost->host_lock
> (initialized in scsi_host_alloc) at runtime by means of the
> scsi_host_template instance given to scsi_host_alloc?

So, even though the part of the lockdep report about nesting with a SCSI
host lock was a false positive, it did motivate Clemens' del_timer_sync
-> del_timer replacement, so it was helpful after all.  I guess there is
no immediate need anymore to do something about the conflation of
shost->host_lock instances.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==-=- =--- =--=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/