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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1259086459.4531.1752.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:14:19 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	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 Tue, 2009-11-24 at 11:12 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:33:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Which of the alternatives to slab should I be testing with, then?
> 
> I'm guessing your system is in the minority that has more than $10 worth
> of RAM, which means you should probably be evaluating SLUB.

Well, I was rather hoping that'd die too ;-)

Weren't we going to go with SLQB?

--
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/