linux-kernel - Re: regulator: deadlock vs memory reclaim

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:21:08 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: regulator: deadlock vs memory reclaim

10.08.2020 23:18, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:15:28PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 10.08.2020 23:09, Michał Mirosław пишет:
>>> At first I also thought so, but there's more. Below is a lockdep
>>> complaint with your patch applied. I did a similar patch and then two more
>>> (following) and that is still not enough (sysfs/debugfs do allocations,
>>> too).
>> Then it should be good to move the locking for init_coupling() like I
>> suggested and use GFP_NOWAIT for the two other cases. It all could be a
>> single small patch. Could you please check whether GFP_NOWAIT helps?
> 
> This would be equivalent to my patches. Problem with sysfs and debugfs
> remains as they don't have the option of GFP_NOWAIT. This needs to be
> moved outside of the locks.

Ah okay, you meant the debugfs core. I see now, thanks.