From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423360AbWBBHrv (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:47:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423361AbWBBHrv (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:47:51 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:61654 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423360AbWBBHru (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:47:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 08:46:27 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Herbert Xu Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [lock validator] inet6_destroy_sock(): soft-safe -> soft-unsafe lock dependency Message-ID: <20060202074627.GA6805@elte.hu> References: <20060128152204.GA13940@elte.hu> <20060131102758.GA31460@gondor.apana.org.au> <20060131.024323.83813817.davem@davemloft.net> <20060201133219.GA1435@elte.hu> <20060201202610.GA13107@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060201202610.GA13107@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.2 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.2 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.6 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:32:19PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > update: with all of Herbert's fixes i havent gotten these yet - so maybe > > the validator was not producing a false positive, but perhaps the > > inet6_destroy_sock()->sk_dst_reset() thing was causing the messages? > > Maybe. But in that case shouldn't the validator show that code-path? yeah, it should have. In any case, things are looking good so far with your fixes. (Any suggestions wrt. how to trigger as many different codepaths in the networking code as possible, to increase coverage of locking scenarios mapped? I've tried LTP so far, and a few ad-hoc tests. Perhaps there's some IP protocol tester i should try, which is known to trigger lots of boundary conditions?) Ingo