linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wireless: wl12xx, fix lock imbalance

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: <1247522068.7178.4.camel@johannes.local>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:54:27 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: wl12xx, fix lock imbalance

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 23:51 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 07/13/2009 11:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 23:44 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > 
> >>> I've had local hacks
> >>> many times to make sparse aware of mutexes, is there a reason they are
> >>> not annotated with __acquire(s)/__release(s) like spinlocks etc.?
> >>
> >> Mutexes are often locked/unlocked interprocedural which I think sparse
> >> can't do much about.
> > 
> > Well, you annotate those functions too, of course.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. What functions I annotate?

Well those that take the mutex, e.g.

void acquire_foo(struct foo *f)
{
	mutex_lock(&f->mtx);
}


turns to

void acquire_foo(struct foo *f)
	__acquires(f->mtx)
{
	mutex_lock(&f->mtx);
}

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)