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: <1217860332.3589.11.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:32:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
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()

On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:26 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > No more than 48 locks (mutexes, rwlocks, spinlock, RCU, everything
>  > covered by lockdep) held by any one code-path; including nested
>  > interrupt contexts.
> 
> Does that mean that something like the new mm_take_all_locks() operation
> is going to explode if someone tries to use it with lockdep on?

Gah - yes, clearly nobody tried this.. :-/

Just looking at the code it will not only run into this limit, but it
would warn about recursion on the second file/anon vma due to utter lack
of annotation.

Why are people still developing without lockdep?

/me sad

--
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/