linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] degrade severity of lockdep printk

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, 23 Mar 2009 16:39:58 -0400
From:	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] degrade severity of lockdep printk

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:32:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Although I don't really see how this can be particularly fixed, since
> > any workload that allocates a struct with a lock, initializes, and then
> > eventually frees it a whole bunch of times will run out of lock_lists
> > won't it?
> 
> Not if the lock init site doesn't change. Modules are the big exception,
> cycling modules will run you out of lockdep space..
> 

Somewhat confused by this... possibly I'm just being thick and missing
some subtlety though, but surely the context is equally important?
I mean, the locks held on entry to, say, a fs_operations struct member
function could be different on every different possible callpath...

regards, Kyle
--
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/