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

Message-ID: <20120509174853.GF24636@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 May 2012 10:48:53 -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 Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:47:34PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Okay, then what do you think about this approach?  It does seem smaller 
> > > and simpler than the previous attempt.
> > > 
> > > And I did try to avoid unnecessary bloat; if lockdep isn't being used
> > > then the extra attribute flag isn't present.
> > 
> > Yeap, looks good to me.
> 
> Unless there are any objections from Eric or Peter in the next few
> days, I'll submit it.  Can I add your Acked-by?

Sure.

Thanks for the persistence.

-- 
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/