linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] workqueue lockdep limitations/bugs

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: <20180821160039.GO3978217@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:00:39 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] workqueue lockdep limitations/bugs

Hello, Johannes.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 02:03:15PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 3)
> The third problem is more complicated, but it means that we likely miss a
> lot of potential locking problems with ordered workqueues, and I think we
> should really try to fix this somehow.
> 
> Let's say we again have an ordered workqueue, and the following:
> 
> work1_function
> {
> 	mutex_lock(&mutex);
> }

Regular mutexes complain when the locker isn't the unlocker already.
Do we really care about this case?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun