linux-kernel - Re: Q. locking order of dcache_lru

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: <1302525684.2388.90.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:41:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q. locking order of dcache_lru_lock

On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 21:33 +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra:
> > Not really a problem, locking order is simply a tool/scheme to avoid
> > deadlocks. Since there is no deadlock potential its fine to 'violate'
> > locking order.
> 
> I see.
> Then lockdep always ignore all tyrlocks?

For tracking dependencies, yes. It does register we hold the lock when
the trylock is successful.
--
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/