linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: lustre: sparse lock warning fix

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: <D18216B5.F1936%andreas.dilger@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 16:51:59 +0000
From:	"Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Adrian Remonda <adrianremonda@...il.com>
CC:	"open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"moderated list:STAGING - LUSTRE..." <HPDD-discuss@...1.01.org>,
	Greg Donald <gdonald@...il.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: lustre: sparse lock warning fix

On 2015/05/18, 3:21 PM, "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:

>On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:34:51PM +0200, Adrian Remonda wrote:
>> Fixed sparse warning: context imbalance in 'nrs_resource_put_safe' -
>> 'different lock contexts for basic block' by releasing the lock on each
>> iteration of the for loop.
>> 
>
>That changelog doesn't sound correct at all.  That's not a correct
>motivation or explanation.
>
>I reviewed the patch and it's likely going to cause dead locks. The code
>is trying to take the spinlock for the first pointer in the array and
>release it at the end.  Now it takes the first pointer's spinlock a
>bunch of times (dead lock) and releases it once (will not happen because
>we are already dead).

It isn't clear to me what the checkpatch complaint actually means?  Is it
that the spin_lock() and spin_unlock() calls have different amounts of
indentation?

Cheers, Andreas
-- 
Andreas Dilger

Lustre Software Architect
Intel High Performance Data Division


--
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/