linux-kernel - Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

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:	Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:07:36 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 16:41 -0700, David Collins wrote:

> There seem to be very few uses of mutex_lock_nested() in the kernel.  Most
> of them use subclass = SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING.  Would this be sufficient for
> usage in the regulator core in _notifier_call_chain (and perhaps other
> places) or should some other subclass be used?

Note, I do not know this code well enough to say. I'm assuming that an
rdevA on a rdevB->supply_list never has rdevB on its own
rdevA->supply_list.

If this is the case, and that you only ever have a lock nesting of one,
then sure, use the SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING.

Peter or Ingo could correct me if I'm wrong.

-- Steve



--
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/