linux-kernel - Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.

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: <12592.1329461261@jrobl>
Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:41 +0900
From:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.


Al Viro:
> Sigh...  That patch is correct, but it has nothing to do with the locking
> order violation that really *is* there.  The only benefit would be to
> get rid of the "deadlock is not possible" nonsense, since you would see
> read/write vs. mmap instead of readdir vs. mmap in the traces.  Locking
	:::

How do you think about this patch?

Re: [RFC 0/2] locking order of mm->mmap_sem and various FS
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132124846728745&w=2

Ah, I found mutex_destroy() call in hugetlbfs_destroy_inode() should be
removed.
If you think this approach is good, then I'd post a revised patch.


J. R. Okajima
--
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/