linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/5] lockdep: (Was: check && lockdep_no

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: <20140120181942.GA20783@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:19:42 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] lockdep: (Was: check && lockdep_no_validate)

On 01/17, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Yes, sure. This change assumes that the only problem in drivers/base is
> > dev->parent->mutex / dev->mutex dependency. If the locking is even more
> > "broken" (wrt lockdep), we can't replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
> > with lockdep_set_auto_nested().
>
> I suspect it is even more "broken".  But I can't point to specific
> examples.
>
> ...
>
> My guess is that if your change is deployed widely, there will be
> reports of violations.  That's only a guess.

OK, lets (try to) do this later. Let me send the changes which I hope
should be fine in any case.

> Still, you could go ahead and try it, just to see what happens.

Yes, perhaps it makes sense at least to test this change and see what
happens... We will see.

> Also, take a look at commit 356c05d58af0.  It's a similar situation
> (not exactly the same).

At first glance, can't __ATTR_IGNORE_LOCKDEP() use no_validate too ?
(ignoring the fact checkpatch.pl won't be happy). This can simplify
the code, it seems.

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/