linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: tty_mutex: fix lockdep warning in tty_lock

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: <CACVXFVNfAc-SwPMhf1RwNEEWY_4jZEEx3kMk_MV=pY02d750Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 May 2012 12:37:06 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: tty_mutex: fix lockdep warning in tty_lock_pair(v3)

Hi,

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 17:23 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> You mean that the below is good usage of lock?
>>
>>         LOCK A
>>         LOCK B
>>
>>         UNLOCK A
>>         UNLOCK B
>
> Yep, nothing wrong with that. Its lock order that matters, unlock very
> much not so.

OK.

Also I tested your patch in the link below again and it is OK.

     http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133728068726465&w=2

Sorry for my fault because the patch above can't be applied cleanly
against -next and I edited it manually to cause the previous test
mistake.

Greg and Peter, so I recall this patch and Peter may send a formal
one for merge.

Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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/