linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] workqueue: Fix irq inversion deadlock in manage

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: <20171009130700.GY3301751@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 06:07:00 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: Fix irq inversion deadlock in manage_workers()

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:42:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 12:03:47PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So, if I'm not mistaken, this is a regression caused by b9c16a0e1f73
> > ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail") which seems to
> > replace irqsave operations inside mutex to unconditional irq ones.
> 
> No, it existed before that. You're looking at the DEBUG_MUTEX case, the
> normal case looked like:

Ah, I see.  That mutex usage was a stretch anyway.  I'll get rid of
it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun