From: Dawson Engler <engler@csl.stanford.edu>
Message-Id: <200409080510.i885ANcX025884@csl.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [CHECKER] possible reiserfs deadlock in 2.6.8.1
To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: engler@coverity.dreamhost.com (Dawson Engler),
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, developers@coverity.com
Reply-To: engler@csl.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <20040908033628.GV23987@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> from "viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk" at Sep 08, 2004 04:36:28 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 921
Lines: 21

> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 08:16:53PM -0700, Dawson Engler wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > below is a possible deadlock in the linux-2.6.8.1 reiserfs code found by
> > a static deadlock checker I'm writing.  Let me know if it looks valid
> > and/or whether the output is too cryptic.    Note, one of the locks is
> > through a struct pointer, so the deadlock depends on both acquisitions
> > being to the same struct.
> 
> Not valid, for the same reason as the above.  BKL and down() do not form
> a mutual deadlock.

You know, I actually know this, and the tool "does" take care of this.
I think a bit mask got screwed up somewhere.  Along with my brain...

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