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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=E+jx+6-e+5LO+pnW4eZ51fSXTf01sEMXY9Ogm@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:15:56 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add assert_spin_locked() to ensure lock is held

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 21:48, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> 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.
>

I didn't see any problems in there. I just thought
if a code has such a restriction, generally it is better
to have an explicit assertion in the code also
not only in comments. Since those functions are
EXPORTed ones I thought there will be a possibility
of misusing them, although they could be found
quickly without this facility. :-)


-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim
--
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/