linux-kernel - Re: lockdep: strange %s#5 lock name

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: <20140213221515.GL17608@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:15:15 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, trinity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep: strange %s#5 lock name

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:26:45PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > It seems to me that when the second time alloc_workqueue() is called
> > > from the same code path, it would have two locks with the same key, but
> > > not the same &wq->name, which doesn't meet lockdep's assumption.
> > 
> > Dang...  I reverted the previous patch for now.  Peter, does this
> > approach sound good to you?
> 
> Whatever works I suppose; like Li said; a little ugly but not sure we
> can do better.

Cool, Li, can you please spin it on top of v3.14-rc1 w/ SOB and
description.

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/