linux-kernel - Re: [take12 3/3] kevent: Timer notifications.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:27:22 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [take12 3/3] kevent: Timer notifications.

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 15:18 +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> ]> > +	lockdep_set_class(&t->ktimer_storage.lock, &kevent_timer_key);
> > 
> > When looking at the kevent_storage_init callers most need to do
> > those lockdep_set_class class.  Shouldn't kevent_storage_init just
> > get a "struct lock_class_key *" argument?
> 
> It will not work, since inode is used for both socket and inode
> notifications (to save some space in struct sock), lockdep initalization
> is performed on the highest level, so I put it alone.

Call me a cynic, but I'm always a bit sceptical about needing lockdep
annotations like this... Can you explain why you need it in this case,
including the proof that it's safe?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/