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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:51:41 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Jason Baron <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Al Viro <>,,,
        Davidlohr Bueso <>
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:24:34AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 12/01/2017 06:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:34:50PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> >> hmmm...I'm not sure how this suggestion would change the locking rules
> >> from what we currently have. Right now, we use ep->lock, if we remove
> >> that and use ep->wq->lock instead, there is just a 1-to-1 mapping there
> >> that has not changed, since ep->wq->lock currently is completely not
> >> being used.
> > 
> > True.  The patch below survives the amazing complex booting and starting
> > systemd with lockdep enabled test.  Do we have something resembling a
> > epoll test suite?
> >
> I don't think we have any in the kernel tree proper (other than some
> selftests using epoll) but there are tests in ltp and some performance
> tests such as:

That one just seems to keep running until interrupted.  I've run
it for a while and it seems fine, but I doesn't seem to get any
ok/failed kind of status.


Seems to work fine as well, so I'm going to resend the updated patch.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists