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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140711082500.GB20603@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:25:00 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, 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, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > What if we move lockdep's acquisition point to after it actually got the > lock? NAK, you want to do deadlock detection _before_ you're stuck in a deadlock. > 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'm missing the problem here I think. -- 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