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: <1259080406.4531.1645.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:33:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:13 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> > This seems like a lot of work to paper over a lockdep false positive in
> > code that should be firmly in the maintenance end of its lifecycle? I'd
> > rather the fix or papering over happen in lockdep.
> 
> True that. Is __raw_spin_lock() out of question, Peter?-) Passing the 
> state is pretty invasive because of the kmem_cache_free() call in 
> slab_destroy(). We re-enter the slab allocator from the outer edges 
> which makes spin_lock_nested() very inconvenient.

I'm perfectly fine with letting the thing be as it is, its apparently
not something that triggers very often, and since slab will be killed
off soon, who cares.

--
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/