linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130216170605.GC4910@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:06:05 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

Well, this is almost cosmetics, and I am not maintaner, but...

On 02/16, Mandeep Singh Baines wrote:
>
>  static inline bool try_to_freeze(void)
>  {
> +	if (current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)
> +		return false;
> +	debug_check_no_locks_held(current, "lock held while trying to freeze");

I think this should be

	if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE))
		debug_check_no_locks_held(...);

without "return". This way we avoid the unnecessary PF_NOFREEZE check
if !CONFIG_LOCKDEP. And perhaps more importantly, this way it is clear
that we check PF_NOFREEZE for debugging only and do not change the code
behaviour.

But I leave this to Rafael/Tejun.

And again, unless I missed something, this makes 1/5 unnecessary.

Oleg.

--
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/