linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: sanitise CONFIG_PROVE

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, 29 May 2007 16:16:17 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: sanitise CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING


* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 02:52:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Ensure that all of the lock dependency tracking code is under
> > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. This allows us to use the held lock tracking code
> > for other purposes.
> 
> There's an awfull lot of ifdefs introduced in this patch, I wonder 
> whether it might be better to split up lockdep.c at those boundaries.

it adds 6 new #ifdefs. There's 35 #ifdefs in page_alloc.c, 44 in 
sysctl.c and 64 in sched.c. I'd not call it 'an awful lot', although 
certainly it could be reduced. Splitting lockdep.c up would uglify it 
well beyond the impact of the 6 #ifdefs, given the amount of glue 
needed.

	Ingo
-
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/