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: <20171130221126.GA31795@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:11:26 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:38:02PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> I don't think there is a bug here. The 'wake_up_locked()' calls in epoll
> are being protected by the ep->lock, not the wait_queue_head lock. So
> arguably the 'annotation' is wrong, but I don't think there is a bug
> beyond that.

They can't be protected by ep->lock.  The file might as well be
watched for using poll or select as well, or just using epoll using
another epoll fd.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ