linux-kernel - Does CONFIG_PARAVIRT imply usage of byte locks?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0901092253240.5377@jikos.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:58:15 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Does CONFIG_PARAVIRT imply usage of byte locks?

Hi,

in [1] Linus states that CONFIG_PARAVIRT implies usage of inferior locks.

Looking at the code, I wonder whether are we in fact really using byte 
locks in CONFIG_PARAVIRT situation? Where are we actually setting 
pv_lock_ops.spin_lock pointer to point to __byte_spin_lock?

Such initialization seems to happen only in paravirt_use_bytelocks()
function, but my blind eyes prevent me from finding a callsite from which
this function would eventually get called.

It seems to me that paravirt_use_bytelocks() is a dead code that gets 
never called, and the same applies to the implementations of write locks. 
What did I miss?

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123144211719754&w=2

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/