linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

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: <1331246669.11248.449.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:44:29 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, jboyer@...hat.com,
	tyhicks@...onical.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 21:44 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> I suspect that they right thing would be to have a way to set explicit
> nesting rules, not tied to speficic call trace. 

See might_lock() / might_lock_read(), these are used to implement
might_fault(), which is used to annotate paths that could -- but rarely
do -- fault.
--
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/