linux-kernel - Re: spin_is_locked() broken for uniprocessor?

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: <1251365554.20467.51.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:32:34 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linux-Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: spin_is_locked() broken for uniprocessor?

On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 11:41 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > which implies to me that spin_is_locked() will always return
> false.  Is this
> > > > expected behavior.
> > > 
> > > That's wrong. spin_is_locked should always return true on UP.
> > 
> > Surely it's not that simple?  Maybe spin_is_lock() should be
> undefined on UP.
> 
> #define spin_is_locked(l) panic()
> 
> should sort things out quickly ;-)

Not defining it would sort things out even faster and avoid nasty case
of system panic'ing when a module is loaded :-)

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/