Re: [PATCH] Lockdep treats down_write_trylock like regular down_write

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> This causes constructions like
>>
>> down_write(&mm1->mmap_sem);
>> if (down_write_trylock(&mm2->mmap_sem)) {
>>        ...
>>        up_write(&mm2->mmap_sem);
>> }
>> up_write(&mm1->mmap_sem);
>>
>> generate a lockdep warning about circular locking dependence.
> 
> please show me why this is safe, especially if you intermix it with
> down_read()'s... like copy_to_user and co may do.

This is safe as once the task locks the mm1->mmap_sem and gets
into '...' place it is *running* and will release booth semaphores
for sure.

> this feels like a very unsafe construct to me...
> 

-
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:
  • [PATCH] Lockdep treats down_write_trylock like regular down_write
    • From: Pavel Emelianov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Lockdep treats down_write_trylock like regular down_write
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Add a norecovery option to ext3/4?
• Next by Date: Re: [patch] sched: align rq to cacheline boundary
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Lockdep treats down_write_trylock like regular down_write
• Next by thread: ppc+k3b=crash
• 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]