Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

[Rik van Riel]

On 03/26/2013 09:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 14:42 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > depth nesting here...
> > Adding Peter & Ingo for advice about how to proceed
>
> > > +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> > > @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array
> > *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
> > >                  spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> > >                  for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
> > >                          struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + i;
> > > -                       spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> > > +                       spin_lock_nested(&sem->lock,
> > SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> > >                  }
> > >                  locknum = -1;
> > >          }
>
> Right, so as walken said, this isn't going to work right.
>
> I need a little more information as I've not really paid much attention
> to this stuff. Firstly, is there a limit to sem_nsems or is this a
> random user specified number? Secondly do we care about lock order at
> all, or is array order the only order that counts?

It is a user specified number, and we either lock only one
of the semaphore locks, or we lock all of them (in array
order, after taking the semaphore array lock).

--
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/