linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: implement full check without irq checking

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:	Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:15:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: implement full check without irq checking

On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:36 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:

> > del_timer_sync():
> > 
> >   local_irq_save(flags);
> >   lock_aquire(my fake timer lock);
> >   lock_release(...);
> >   local_irq_restore(flags);
> > 
> > and make that conditional CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and or wrap it up
> > somewhere..
> 
> Yeah, that is possible, but it seemed to me that would affect the
> performance of del_timer_sync() quite a bit. Not sure it matters. And on
> powerpc (which I care about) it won't actually affect performance much
> because we lazily disable IRQs, but still. The >= 2 change also seemed
> to generate smaller code?

Its debug code, and I the >= 2 change makes the code much less obvious.

So I prefer the slightly less performant but conceptually cleaner IRQ
disable variant.


--
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/