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: <CACBanvqVpi45TVNGXgXXO0BCSRuPEDsiNuHj0OBsvgr2UXZfsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Mar 2013 19:11:12 -0800
From:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.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 5:16 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 08:05:07PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> If it's really just a 2-line patch to try_to_freeze(), could it just be
>> carried out-of-tree by people that are specifically working on tracking
>> down these problems?
>>
>> But I don't have strong feelings about it--as long as it doesn't result
>> in the same known issues getting reported again and again....
>
> Agreed, I don't think a Kconfig option is justified for this.  If this
> is really important, annotate broken paths so that it doesn't trigger
> spuriously; otherwise, please just remove it.
>

Fair enough. Let's revert then. I'll rework to use a lockdep annotation.

Maybe, add a new lockdep API:

lockdep_set_held_during_freeze(lock);

Then when we do the check, ignore any locks that set this bit.

Ingo, does this seem like a reasonable design to you?

Regards,
Mandeep

> 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/