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  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:	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	davej@...hat.com, koct9i@...il.com, lczerner@...hat.com,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch
 added to -mm tree

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 02:52 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > On 07/10/2014 01:55 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >>>> > >> And finally, (not) holding the i_mmap_mutex:
> >>> > > I don't understand what prompts you to show this particular task.
> >>> > > I imagine the dump shows lots of other tasks which are waiting to get an
> >>> > > i_mmap_mutex, and quite a lot of other tasks which are neither waiting
> >>> > > for nor holding an i_mmap_mutex.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Why are you showing this one in particular?  Because it looks like the
> >>> > > one you fingered yesterday?  But I didn't see a good reason to finger
> >>> > > that one either.
> >> > 
> >> > There are a few more tasks like this one, my criteria was tasks that lockdep
> >> > claims were holding i_mmap_mutex, but are actually not.
> > You and Vlastimil enlightened me yesterday that lockdep shows tasks as
> > holding i_mmap_mutex when they are actually waiting to get i_mmap_mutex.
> > Hundreds of those in yesterday's log, hundreds of them in today's.
> 
> What if we move lockdep's acquisition point to after it actually got the
> lock?
> 
> We'd miss deadlocks, but we don't care about them right now. Anyways, doesn't
> lockdep have anything built in to allow us to separate between locks which
> we attempt to acquire and locks that are actually acquired?
> 
> (cc PeterZ)
> 
> We can treat locks that are in the process of being acquired the same as
> acquired locks to avoid races, but when we print something out it would
> be nice to have annotation of the read state of the lock.

I certainly hope someone can work on improving that.  I imagine it would
be easy, and well worth doing.  But won't be looking into it myself.

Hugh
--
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