[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120216182106.GA17020@albatros>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:21:06 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + syscalls-x86-add-__nr_kcmp-syscall-v8.patch added to -mm tree
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 20:49 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> + err = mutex_lock_killable(m1);
> + if (!err && likely(m1 != m2)) {
> + err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(m2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
Doesn't it lead to a deadlock?
mutex_lock_killable(task1)
| mutex_lock_killable(task2)
mutex_lock_killable_nested(task2) |
(locked) |
mutex_lock_killable_nested(task1)
(locked)
I suppose you should use some global lock (kcmp_lock) before both locks.
Thanks,
--
Vasiliy Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists