| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:24:47 +0100 From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> To: Peter Chen <peter.chen@...escale.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: v3.9-rc1: swapper/0 [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] Hi Peter, Le 07/03/2013 09:08, Peter Chen a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> [ 2.149645] other info that might help us debug this: >> [ 2.149645] >> [ 2.157667] Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> [ 2.157667] >> [ 2.163598] CPU0 CPU1 >> [ 2.168134] ---- ---- >> [ 2.172667] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock); >> [ 2.176790] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock); >> [ 2.183255] lock(&(&cdev->lock)->rlock); >> [ 2.189893] lock(&(&ci->lock)->rlock); > > The precondition of above is the chipidea interrupt can be re-entered. > But as far as I know, the same interrupt can't be re-entered at current > system. Yes, it seems to work quite fine anyway, but I'm not sure simply ignoring this would be the right answer. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists