linux-kernel - Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

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: <20091123194334.GD6774@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:34 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	mpm@...enic.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:30:50PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> > That turns out to be _very_ hard. How about something like the following
> > untested patch which delays slab_destroy() while we're under nc->lock.
> 
> Code changes to deal with a diagnostic issue?

Indeed!  At least if we want the diagnostics to have any value, we do
need to avoid false alarms.  Same reasoning as for gcc warnings, right?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/