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: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:14:38 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, johannes@...solutions.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:46:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Now given the above observance rule and the fact that the below report > is from the complete, the thing that happened appears to be: > > > lockdep_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map) > down_write(&A) > > down_write(&A) > wait_for_completion(&C) > > lockdep_map_acquire(&work_lockdep_map); > complete(&C) > > Which lockdep then puked over because both sides saw the same work > class. > > Byungchul; should we not exclude the work class itself, it appears to me > the workqueue code is explicitly parallel, or am I confused again? Do you mean the lockdep_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map) used manuallly? That was introduced by Johannes: commit 4e6045f134784f4b158b3c0f7a282b04bd816887 "workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep" I am not sure but, for that purpose, IMHO, we can use a lockdep_map_acquire_read() instead, in process_one_work(), can't we?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists