linux-kernel - Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes

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: <CA+55aFwJO40594yLH0gS_7YurDGAojVYfgBQXLNawraV_jdNsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:16:30 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> sysrq-d: http://fpaste.org/ow9O/

Ugh. I'm adding PeterZ to the cc, just to see if he can make more sense of it.

Peter, is there no way to make the lock thing print not just the lock
class name, but also the pointer to the actual *instance* of the lock
held?

Also, it's a bit unclear to me, but I *think* that most of those users
don't actually "hold" the lock - they are waiting for it. Yes/no? Does
the lockdep information have the capability to distinguish between
"waiting for" vs "actually successfully owns the lock"?

              Linus
--
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/