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: <1534871755.25523.32.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:15:55 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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

Hi Tejun,

> > 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?

Oh, sorry for the confusion. I was just eliding the - not very
interesting for this case - unlock. Really I should've typed up a
lock/unlock pair in all of the examples.

johannes