linux-kernel - Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

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: <20120427211625.GP26595@google.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:16:25 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:09:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I don't mind the attitude we are clever careful programmers we can
> handle the complexity and we can get away without the tool help us, but
> I would much rather see the attitude that we are clever careful
> programmers and we can figure out how to make the tool help us instead
> of just ignoring it.

I'm okay with using static array of keys so that each level maps to
separate key or just calling it a special case and ignoring it, but I
think it's quite silly to use an async mechanism just to avoid lockdep
warning.  Things like that tend to make things obscure as people
generally don't expect lockdep annotation to dictate overall
behaviors.  It is an annotation problem.  Let's keep it that way.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/