Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency

* Herbert Xu <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > update: with all of Herbert's fixes i havent gotten these yet - so maybe 
> > the validator was not producing a false positive, but perhaps the 
> > inet6_destroy_sock()->sk_dst_reset() thing was causing the messages?
> 
> Maybe.  But in that case shouldn't the validator show that code-path?

yeah, it should have. In any case, things are looking good so far with 
your fixes. (Any suggestions wrt. how to trigger as many different 
codepaths in the networking code as possible, to increase coverage of 
locking scenarios mapped? I've tried LTP so far, and a few ad-hoc tests.  
Perhaps there's some IP protocol tester i should try, which is known to 
trigger lots of boundary conditions?)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
    • From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [lock validator] net/ipv4/fib_hash.c: illegal {enabled-softirqs} -> {used-in-softirq} usage?
    • From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
  • [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
    • From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
  • Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
    • From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
    • From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: calling bios interrupt
• Next by Date: Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)
• Previous by thread: Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
• Next by thread: Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]