linux-kernel - Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:09:02 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

Hello,

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:57:02AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> By the way, do you know why attribute structures allow for dynamic keys 
> as well as static keys?  I see dynamic keys are used by attribute 
> containers, but I don't understand why.

I have no idea.  Eric?

> > > Another idea is to have A's method temporarily drop the sysfs readlock.  
> > > Of course that would put the onus on the USB core of guaranteeing that
> > > A cannot be removed while this happens, but we can handle that.
> > 
> > Yeah, that's an easier way out.  Please make it a proper sysfs API
> > call tho so that people working on sysfs later can know of the special
> > case.
> 
> I will.
> 
> Would it be better to release just the lockdep annotation while
> continuing to hold the actual lock, or to really drop the lock?

Just the lockdep annotation, I think.

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/