[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1410943421.28850.93.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
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