[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C35082.1000001@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:38:26 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez <alfredoalvarezfernandez@...il.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockdep: liblockdep: Prevent chain_key collisions
On 02/10/2016 06:33 PM, Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez wrote:
> This patch series prevents possible collisions in the chain_key
> hashing macro iterate_chain_key(key1, key2) that can lead to lockdep
> not detecting very simple deadlocks such as AA or ABBA.
>
> The problem only affects the first allocated lock classes. That could
> explain why it was not seen while running lockdep's test suite, since
> by the time the test suite runs there are already registered lock
> classes and the indexes allocated for the lock classes under test are
> high enough to avoid collisions.
>
> The patch series also extends the tools/liblockdep test suite with
> tests covering the offending cases.
>
> I came across the problem while testing a simple AA deadlock scenario
> in userspace using a pthread_mutex and tools/liblockdep. In that
> context it is fairly easy to have a clean and deterministic initial
> state where the problem can be reproduced.
>
> The proposed solution was tested with the newly introduced tests and
> also with lockdep's test suite:
> [ 0.000000] Good, all 253 testcases passed! |
Thanks Alfredo, I'll grab the first two.
Peter/Ingo, will you take the lockdep one or do you want it to go through
my tree?
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists