linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] lockdep: add support for queued rwlock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:19:59 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] lockdep: add support for queued rwlock

On 07/07/2014 08:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:39:09PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> v4->v5:
>>   - Add patch 2 to update the locking selftest code to handle recursive
>>     read_lock correctly. Patch 1 has no change.
> I removed all CONFIG_QUEUE_RWLOCK dependencies and made lockdep
> unconditionally assume the stronger constraints.
>
> Since we want all code 'clean' for the strongest possible
> implementation, everybody should run with those semantics, it doesn't
> make sense to have that configurable.
>
> Eg. someone on (say ARM, which doesn't -- yet -- have QUEUE_RWLOCK)
> could unwittingly introduce faulty code.

I think this is a better way to go. I didn't take this way in my patch 
for fear that I may be pushing too much.

-Longman
--
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/