linux-kernel - Re: lockdep: holding locks across syscall boundaries

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: <2d15edac-0227-415a-b12c-922c6873ae04@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:39:13 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep: holding locks across syscall boundaries

On 10/27/23 10:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The difference is that in this case the full lock order is determined by
> kernel code (under our full control), while in the earlier example, the
> lock order is determined by syscall order -- out of our control.

Ah yes, good point - this seems like the key concept here. I think we're
better off doing this seperately and just return -EDEADLK or something
like that if it's being violated, rather than spew complaints.

Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe