[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201002130929.GW2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:09:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: g@...ez.programming.kicks-ass.net, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep null-ptr-deref
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 08:36:02PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> But what if f2() is called with interrupt disabled? Or f2() disables
> interrupt inside the function, like:
>
> void f2(...)
> {
> local_irq_disable();
> spin_lock(&B);
> g(...);
> ...
> local_irq_enable();
> }
>
> In this case, there wouldn't be any LOCK_ENABLED_*_READ usage for
> rwlock_t A. As a result, we won't see it in the lockdep splat.
Hurm, fair enough. So just to make sure, you're arguing for:
-#define LOCK_TRACE_STATES (XXX_LOCK_USAGE_STATES*4 + 1)
+#define LOCK_TRACE_STATES (XXX_LOCK_USAGE_STATES*4 + 2)
On top of my earlier patch, right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists