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: <20120507215518.GN19417@google.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2012 14:55:18 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Lockdep false positive in sysfs

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> I guess in the end it's a question of balance.  Which has more 
> overhead, adding a few function calls here and there, or adding a new 
> flags field to every struct attribute?

Yes, and there are different types of overheads.  I'm happy to trade
some runtime memory overhead under debugging mode for lower code
complexity.  Lock proving is pretty expensive anyway.  I don't think
there's much point in trying to optimize some bytes from struct
attributes.

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/