linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Print a nice description of an irq locking issue

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: <20110329182131.GB16244@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:21:31 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Print a nice description of an irq locking
 issue


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> After having to explain lockdep interrupt locking inversions a few
> times, I decided to have lockdep spit out the scenario that it is
> complaining about.

Looks very useful!

Would you be interested in extending this to other lockdep splats as well? 

"What does this mean" is a very common reaction to lockdep splats on lkml, and 
it's kind of silly that lockdep does not explain things better (like your patch 
does) - it has already done the much harder job of *proving* that a locking 
sequence is problematic :-)

	Ingo
--
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/