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: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:11:16 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: Report recursive ww_mutex locking early On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:43:53AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 26-05-16 om 22:08 schreef Chris Wilson: > > Recursive locking for ww_mutexes was originally conceived as an > > exception. However, it is heavily used by the DRM atomic modesetting > > code. Currently, the recursive deadlock is checked after we have queued > > up for a busy-spin and as we never release the lock, we spin until > > kicked, whereupon the deadlock is discovered and reported. > > > > A simple solution for the now common problem is to move the recursive > > deadlock discovery to the first action when taking the ww_mutex. > > > > Testcase: igt/kms_cursor_legacy I've no idea what this tag is or where to find the actual testcase, so I've killed it. > > Suggested-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com> > > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org > > --- > > > > Maarten suggested this as a simpler fix to the immediate problem. Imo, > > we still want to perform deadlock detection within the spin in order to > > catch more complicated deadlocks without osq_lock() forcing fairness! > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com> > > Should this be Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org ? Can do; how far back?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists