Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753777AbZGDWEe (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2009 18:04:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752493AbZGDWE0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2009 18:04:26 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]:55387 "EHLO sj-iport-6.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752483AbZGDWEZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Jul 2009 18:04:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,349,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="337583287" From: Roland Dreier To: Tyler Hicks Cc: kirkland@canonical.com, ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] eCryptfs: Fix lockdep-reported AB-BA mutex issue References: <4A4D0897.6060504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:04:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A4D0897.6060504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Tyler Hicks's message of "Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:20:55 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2009 22:04:29.0067 (UTC) FILETIME=[66EA8DB0:01C9FCF3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1550 Lines: 34 > This patch looks good. I really appreciate you tracking down and fixing > this problem. It will take me a little bit longer before I can get to > the other 2 patches. Thanks, so I'll assume that this patch has been queued up and will go upstream at some point? I'll resend the patch for removing the locking from ecryptfs_destroy_crypt_stat() and ecryptfs_destroy_inode() with a proper changelog and s-o-b. Again, that patch is (almost by definition) not fixing a real issue, since the lock problems that lockdep is warning about must never occur for the same reason that the patch is valid, namely that no other context will ever try to lock an object that is in the process of being freed. However, as you mentioned, it definitely is worth cleaning up lockdep false positives because lockdep disables itself as soon as it prints one report, and so fixing up ecryptfs makes lockdep much more useful for debugging other stuff while still being able to use ecryptfs (as I like to do on my laptop, since I'd just as soon not hand over all my files in case my laptop is lost somehow). I'll resend the s_vfs_rename_mutex annotation patch via the generic vfs tree, since the change is really not in ecryptfs code at all (although it is triggered by having a stacked filesystem). Thanks, Roland -- 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/