linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in free

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: <20140205155840.43d6b4ad@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:58:40 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, penberg@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in
 free_partial()

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 12:32:43 -0800 (PST)
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> There's an extremely small overhead of taking this lock, the cache has 
> been destroyed and is the process of being torn down, there will be 
> absolutely no contention on n->list_lock.

But why add it if it isn't necessary? You're even disabling interrupts,
which means that you add to the response latency. That is, this change
does affect other aspects of the kernel!

-- Steve
--
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/