linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] debug workqueue locking sanity

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]

Message-ID: <20061106072323.GC29772@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:23:23 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, arjan <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debug workqueue locking sanity


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> +		if (unlikely(in_atomic()
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> +			|| current->lockdep_depth > 0
> +#endif
> +			)) {

i agree with this patch, but shouldnt this #ifdef be hidden via some 
sort of lockdep_depth() inline in lockdep.h that just returns 0 if 
!LOCKDEP?

	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/