linux-kernel - Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!

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: <5144293.t44nDELk4d@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Wed, 06 Mar 2013 01:02:46 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
	"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!

On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 06:11:10 PM J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:49:54AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:46:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > So, I think this is why implementing freezer as a separate blocking
> > > mechanism isn't such a good idea.  We're effectively introducing a
> > > completely new waiting state to a lot of unsuspecting paths which
> > > generates a lot of risks and eventually extra complexity to work
> > > around those.  I think we really should update freezer to re-use the
> > > blocking points we already have - the ones used for signal delivery
> > > and ptracing.  That way, other code paths don't have to worry about an
> > > extra stop state and we can confine most complexities to freezer
> > > proper.
> > 
> > Also, consolidating those wait states means that we can solve the
> > event-to-response latency problem for all three cases - signal, ptrace
> > and freezer, rather than adding separate backing-out strategy for
> > freezer.
> 
> Meanwhile, as none of this sounds likely to be done this time
> around--are we backing out the new lockdep warnings?

I think we should do that.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/