linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest

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: <ada63qgvppx.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Aug 2008 07:07:06 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
	hugh@...itas.com, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock()

 > NOTE: we're still bound to the MAX_LOCK_DEPTH (48) limit.

A) It is probably a good idea to put this in a comment somewhere near
   where spin_lock_nest_lock() is declared.

B) It is probably a good idea to write that comment in such a way that
   dumb people like me understand what the limit is.  The sentence I
   quoted above is too telegraphic for me to get.  Is the point that no
   more than 48 spinlocks can be held at once, even if the inner locks
   are protected by some top level lock?  Or do you mean something else?

 - R.
--
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/