[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpVkyt5C2RG==jJSHumpY1o+M2H0nHRtMs6xp6_fpW3WMA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:19:59 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+aaa6fa4949cc5d9b7b25@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:03 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:41 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:09 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, I fully agree with this.
> > > If we calculate the subclass for lock_nested() very well, I think we
> > > might use static lockdep key for addr_list_lock_key too. I think
> > > "dev->upper_level" and "dev->lower_level" might be used as subclass.
> > > These values are updated recursively in master/nomaster operation.
> >
> > Great! I will think about this too. At least I will remove the other keys
> > for net-next.
>
> Hi Cong,
>
> Was this done? This still harms testing of the whole kernel. Disabling
> LOCKDEP does not look good either...
Not yet, I have a half-done patch locally, will work on it to make it
complete for net-next.
Thanks for reminding me!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists