Hi Kees, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sasha Levin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was fuzzing with trinity within a KVM tools guest (lkvm) on a linux-next >> kernel, and got the >> following dump which I believe to be noise due to how the timers work - but >> I'm not 100% sure. >> ... >> [ 954.674123] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: >> [ 954.674123] >> [ 954.674123] CPU0 CPU1 >> [ 954.674123] ---- ---- >> [ 954.674123] lock(ptracer_relations_lock); >> [ 954.674123] local_irq_disable(); >> [ 954.674123] >> lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock); >> [ 954.674123] lock(ptracer_relations_lock); >> [ 954.674123] <Interrupt> >> [ 954.674123] lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock); >> [ 954.674123] >> [ 954.674123] *** DEADLOCK *** > > I've been wanting to get rid of the Yama ptracer_relations_lock > anyway, so maybe I should do that now just to avoid this case at all?
I still see this one in -rc6, is there anything to get rid of it before the release? Thanks, Sasha -- 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/
