linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: add assert_spin

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: <4C90C098.6070404@kernel.dk>
Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:48:24 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add assert_spin_locked() to ensure lock is held

On 2010-09-15 14:33, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Use assert_spin_locked() macro in order to ensure that queue_lock
> must be held prior to calling some EXPORTed functions.

As far as I know, no such bug has ever occurred that I know
of. So while I don't mind adding such instrumentation, there's
little point to doing it when you are not seeing any usability
problems in there. And all these paths (requeue less) are
heavily used, so problems would appear quickly.

Locking in the block layer is still fairly trivial, we just
have the one lock per queue.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/