[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [CHECKER] a couple potential deadlocks in 2.4.5-ac8

    On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Dawson Engler wrote:
    > >
    > > Good point. Spinlocks (with the exception of read-read locks, of course)
    > > and semaphores will deadlock on recursive use, while the BKL has this
    > > "process usage counter" recursion protection.
    > Actually, it did show up all over the place --- I'd just selected two
    > candidates to examine out of hundreds. (Checking call chains is
    > strenous, even when you know what you're looking for.)


    > > Dawson - the user-mode access part is probably _the_ most interesting from
    > > a lock checking standpoint, could you check doing the page fault case?
    > Sure, it's a pretty interaction. To be sure about the rule: any *_user
    > call can be treated as an implicit invocation of do_page_fault?

    As a first approximation, yes. The exception cases are certain callers
    that use kernel addresses and set_fs(KERNEL_DS) in order to "fake"
    arguments to system calls etc, but I doubt they should need any


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.035 / U:38.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site