linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: make cgrp->event_list

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: <20130306062224.GJ1227@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:22:24 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: make cgrp->event_list_lock irqsafe

Hello, Li.

On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 11:28:01AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> cgroup_event_wake() is called with hardirq-safe wqh->lock held, so
> the nested cgrp->event_list_lock should also be hardirq-safe.
> 
> Fortunately I don't think the deadlock can happen in real life.
> 
> Lockdep never complained, maybe because it never found wqh->lock was
> held in irq context?

Why should wqh->lock be hard-irq-safe?  Is it actually grabbed from
irq context?  Locks which are grabbed with irq disabled aren't
necessarily irq context locks as that doesn't lead to deadlocks.  They
need to be actually grabbed from irq context.

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/