Re: [2.6.33-rc5] starting emacs makes lockdep warning

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8, Size: 1942 bytes --]

Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:01:12PM +0800, Am??rico Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree, it seems that patch is useless, since we already
>>> > do lock_kernel() before calling __f_setown()...
>>>
>>> What's to prevent pid from being freed under us?  BKL won't...
>>
>> I don't understand this issue at all. so, this is stupid dumb question.
>> Why can't we write following code?
>>
>>
>>                enum pid_type type;
>>                struct pid *pid;
>>                if (!waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
>>                        tty->minimum_to_wake = 1;
>>                spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
>>                if (tty->pgrp) {
>>                        pid = tty->pgrp;
>>                        type = PIDTYPE_PGID;
>>                } else {
>>                        pid = task_pid(current);
>>                        type = PIDTYPE_PID;
>>                }
>>                get_pid(pid)                                    // insert here
>>                spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
>>                retval = __f_setown(filp, pid, type, 0);
>>                put_pid(pid)                                    // insert here
>>
>
> Yeah, this seems reasonable for me, but not sure if this is the best fix.

That or tweak __f_setown to use irqsave/irqrestore variants for it's
locks, __f_setown is already atomic.  I prefer that direction because the
code is just a little simpler.

Eric

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥