Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer

> ok this is a real potential deadlock in a way, it takes two locks of 2
> skbuffs without doing any kind of lock ordering; I think the following
> patch should fix it. Just sort the lock taking order by address of the
> skb.. it's not pretty but it's the best this can do in a minimally
> invasive way.

The patch is effective.  Thanks for making it!

Best wishes,

Duncan.
-
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/

---

• References:
  • possible recursive locking in ATM layer
    • From: Duncan Sands <[email protected]>
  • Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
• Next by Date: [PATCH 2.6.17.3] Memory Management: High-Memory Scalability Issue
• Previous by thread: Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer
• Next by thread: Re: possible recursive locking in ATM layer
• 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]