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]

Date:	Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:59:00 -0800
From:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
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>,
	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>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	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 Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> 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?
>
> --b.

What if we hide it behind a Kconfig? Its finding real bugs.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/5/583
--
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/