Re: lockdep splat from ioctl and mmap fops sharing lock

[Johannes Weiner]

Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> raw1394_ioctl() doing usercopy under fi->state_mutex
>> raw1394_mmap() taking fi->state_mutex under mmap_sem
>
> The state_mutex in raw1394 however was introduced by me in patches
> written against 2.6.26 and 2.6.27-rcs.  And I tested the ioctls and I'd
> like to think that I also tested mmaps.  But maybe I didn't.  Of course
> I ahve all sorts of lockdep options enabled.
>
> So, was the usage of mmap_sem changed after 2.6.27 or were my tests
> insufficient?

In linux-next/-mm, copy_to/from_user have lockdep annotations telling
that they might fault and therefor acquire the mmap_sem in #PF.

But since faults on ioctl parameters are so rare, without these
annotations you would probably never see a warning.

        Hannes
--
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/