linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 MCE: shut up lockdep warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090508191101.GB23223@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 May 2009 21:11:01 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 MCE: shut up lockdep warning

> So was this a genuine bug in your code? The patch suggests it was.

No I think it was false. See my earlier email.

The higher level cpu_add_remove_lock makes sure that there is never
an interrupt when the code is running process context.

So Ingo's patch shuts off lockdep, but it's overkill and not really
needed. It would be better if there was some way to express
the dependency on cpu_add_remove_lock, but I'm not sure
that can be expressed in lockdep.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/