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: <489763AB.1030204@goop.org>
Date:	Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:16:43 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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()

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> OK.  I don't actually need to do this, but I was asking for completeness.  But
>> to clarify, you only need to do the reverse unlock if you do it after
>> unlocking the outer lock?  If you're still holding the outer lock, you can
>> unlock in any order?
>>     
>
> Release order should always be totally irrelevant, whether you hold outer 
> locks or not. Only the order of _getting_ locks matter.
>   

Right.  But Peter said lockdep was fussy about it for some reason.  If 
the point of the exercise is to eliminate spurious warnings, it would be 
nice to avoid new ones in the process...

    J
--
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/