linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] lockdep: Kill held_lock->check and "int check" arg of __lock

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: <20140113172833.GT31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:28:33 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] lockdep: Kill held_lock->check and "int check" arg
 of __lock_acquire()

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 06:06:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > The "int check" argument of lock_acquire() and held_lock->check
> > are misleading and unneeded. This is only used as a boolean, 2
> > denotes "true", everything else is "false". And this boolean is
> > always equal to prove_locking.
> >
> > The only exception is __lockdep_no_validate__ which should make
> > this condition "false" in validate_chain().
> 
> And I missed mark_irqflags(),
> 
> > @@ -3136,7 +3130,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
> >  	hlock->holdtime_stamp = lockstat_clock();
> >  #endif
> >
> > -	if (check == 2 && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock))
> > +	if (prove_locking && !mark_irqflags(curr, hlock))
> >  		return 0;
> 
> This change is not right, at least it is not equivalent.
> 
> And I just realized that rcu_lock_acquire() does lock_acquire(check => 1).
> Probably we can mark rcu_lock_map's as __lockdep_no_validate__.

Can't, RCU needs its own classes. Otherwise it cannot tell which version
of the RCU read lock its holding at just that moment.

> Anything else I missed?

Nothing springs to mind, but then, I totally missed the RCU thing too.

At the very least we can reduce check to a single bit.
--
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/