linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make spinlock/rwlock annotations more accurate by using parameters, not types

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:	Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:53:59 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Josh Triplett <josht@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make spinlock/rwlock annotations more accurate by using
 parameters, not types

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:51:38 -0700
Josh Triplett <josht@...ibm.com> wrote:

> The lock annotations used on spinlocks and rwlocks currently use
> __{acquires,releases}(spinlock_t) and __{acquires,releases}(rwlock_t),
> respectively.  This loses the information of which lock actually got acquired
> or released, and assumes a different type for the parameter of __acquires and
> __releases than the rest of the kernel.  While the current implementations of
> __acquires and __releases throw away their argument, this will not always
> remain the case.

It won't?  Why, what will happen?
-
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/