linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] locking/spinlock_debug: Change it to a mostly fair lock

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:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:27:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] locking/spinlock_debug: Change it to a mostly
 fair lock

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:53:08AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> My usual question is "how often does the spinlock_debug code find a
> problem that would be hard to find otherwise?"  Probably unanswerable
> given the nature of Linux-kernel development, but I figured I would ask
> anyway.  ;-)

So I've not found it useful in many years, and quite to the contrary,
its proven prone to generate false positives because the lock timeout
gets hit because of various reasons.

But that's just me of course..