[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201002133536.GF17810@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 21:35:36 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 03:09:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
Yep. Thanks ;-)
Regards,
Boqun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists