On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:30AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
...
> >
> > *cringe*
> >
> > I don't like it. That really should be a responsiblity of specific
> > ->show();
> > "I'm going to take that mutex, bugger off if we are in execve()" makes a lot
> > more sense than having e.g. seq_
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:30AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I don't know why we allow "chmod +x" on some proc files, notably net-related.
> Is it a bug?
# ls -l /proc/{1,157}/net/packet
-r--r--r-- 1 root 0 0 Jul 30 23:01 /proc/1/net/packet
-r--r--r-- 1 root 0 0 Jul 30 23:01 /proc/157/net
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:50:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this?
> >
> > Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I
> >
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:50:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this?
>
> Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I can't
> think of any circumstance where execve() should be reading anythi
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Al, David, any bright ideas on how to best fix this?
Have the seq_xxx() code throw an error if current->in_execve is true. I can't
think of any circumstance where execve() should be reading anything that uses
seq_xxx().
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the l
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:15:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra said:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:18:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So I managed to reproduce, and the below makes it go away. I just don't
> > understand why though. will stare more.
>
> /me kicks himself.. bloody obvious fail there :-)
>
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 15:19 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:12:14AM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> > > Hi! Starting early in this merge window for 3.15, lockdep has been
> > > giving me trouble. Normally, a splat will happe
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:26:52PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:14:44AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > > As a starting point, would either of you
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:26:52PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:14:44AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > > As a starting point, would either of
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:14:44AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > As a starting point, would either of you like to test the following
> > > patch to see if it fixes the issue
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 19:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:14:44AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > So one thing I noticed that is different in the current code is that in
> > debug_mutex_unlock(), there is is a possibility that it does not unlock
> > the mutex (when !debug_lo
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:19:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> [ 26.747484] ==
> [ 26.748725] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 26.748725] 3.13.0-11331-g6f008e72cd11 #1162 Not tainted
> [ 26.748725] ---
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:15:44PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I'm not able to trigger the lockdep report with the patch applied so far.
So what I've found it that the lockdep reports are valid; the only
difference is a lockup after the report or not.
So linus.git will hang after a lockdep
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:18:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I managed to reproduce, and the below makes it go away. I just don't
> understand why though. will stare more.
/me kicks himself.. bloody obvious fail there :-)
Not unlocking the lock after a lockdep trigger will make things get
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:14:44AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> So one thing I noticed that is different in the current code is that in
> debug_mutex_unlock(), there is is a possibility that it does not unlock
> the mutex (when !debug_locks). May be interesting to try out this
> patch too:
Yeah; look
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > As a starting point, would either of you like to test the following
> > patch to see if it fixes the issue? This patch essentially generates the
> > same code as in older kernel
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> As a starting point, would either of you like to test the following
> patch to see if it fixes the issue? This patch essentially generates the
> same code as in older kernels in the debug case. This applies on top of
> kernels with both c
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 15:19 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:12:14AM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> > > Hi! Starting early in this merge window for 3.15, lockdep has been
> > > giving me trouble. Normall
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:42:59PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> +#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC)
DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC always implies DEBUG_MUTEXES, see lib/Kconfig.debug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a messa
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:19:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:12:14AM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> > Hi! Starting early in this merge window for 3.15, lockdep has been
> > giving me trouble. Normally, a splat will happen, lockdep will shut
> > itself off, an
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:19:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I have troble with the commit as well:
How so? As far as I can tell the below is a genuine bug and not related
to the mutex debug thing.
> [ 26.745741]
> [ 26.747484] ==
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 15:19 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:12:14AM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> > Hi! Starting early in this merge window for 3.15, lockdep has been
> > giving me trouble. Normally, a splat will happen, lockdep will shut
> > itself off, and my i6
22 matches
Mail list logo
