linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Catch more locking problems with flush

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: <20120419152841.GA10553@google.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:28:41 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Catch more locking problems with
 flush_work()

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:25:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> @@ -2513,8 +2513,11 @@ bool flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  		wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
>  		destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work);
>  		return true;
> -	} else
> +	} else {
> +		lock_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map);
> +		lock_map_release(&work->lockdep_map);
>  		return false;

We don't have this annotation when start_flush_work() succeeds either,
right?  IOW, would lockdep trigger when an actual deadlock happens?
If not, why not add the acquire/release() before flush_work() does
anything?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/