| 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: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:43:41 +0300 From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 10:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > /* > * nested locking. NOTE: rwsems are not allowed to recurse > * (which occurs if the same task tries to acquire the same > * lock instance multiple times), but multiple locks of the > * same lock class might be taken, if the order of the locks > * is always the same. This ordering rule can be expressed > * to lockdep via the _nested() APIs, but enumerating the > * subclasses that are used. (If the nesting relationship is > * static then another method for expressing nested locking is > * the explicit definition of lock class keys and the use of > * lockdep_set_class() at lock initialization time. > * See Documentation/lockdep-design.txt for more details.) > */ > > In this case the same task is taking the same lock multiple times, > which is not allowed according to rwsem.h. Yes, this part was missed, thanks. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy -- 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