linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

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, 15 Feb 2013 16:44:49 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

On 02/14, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held. Verified that
> I get no lockdep warnings after applying this patch and
> "vfork: don't freezer_count() for in-kernel users of CLONE_VFORK".

Ah. Now I understand why you did 1/5. Beacuse you call
debug_check_no_locks_held() right at the start of try_to_freeze(),
even if the caller can't be frozen.

>  static inline bool try_to_freeze(void)
>  {
> +	debug_check_no_locks_held(current);
>  	might_sleep();
>  	if (likely(!freezing(current)))
>  		return false;

Up to maintainers, but perhaps you should check !PF_NOFREEZE at least?

Oleg.

--
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/