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  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]
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:55:07 +0200
From:	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Sanjeev Sharma <sanjeev_sharma@...tor.com>
CC:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kraxel@...hat.com,
	mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uas: replace WARN_ON_ONCE() with assert_spin_locked().

Hi,

On 08/11/2014 08:19 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 01:29:26PM +0530, Sanjeev Sharma wrote:
>> spin_is_locked() always return false in uniprocessor configuration and therefore it
>> would be advise to repalce with assert_spin_locked().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Sharma <Sanjeev_Sharma@...tor.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/usb/storage/uas.c | 8 ++++----
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/storage/uas.c b/drivers/usb/storage/uas.c
>> index 3f42785..8e5877d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/storage/uas.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/storage/uas.c
>> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static void uas_mark_cmd_dead(struct uas_dev_info *devinfo,
>>  	struct scsi_cmnd *cmnd = container_of(scp, struct scsi_cmnd, SCp);
>>  
>>  	uas_log_cmd_state(cmnd, caller);
>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!spin_is_locked(&devinfo->lock));
>> +	assert_spin_locked(&devinfo->lock);
> 
> Seems to me that replacing WARN_ON_ONCE (which may be annoying but only
> creates a traceback, and only once) with assert_spin_locked (which
> crashes the kernel) is a bit drastic.

I can see your point, but so far these paranoia checks have never triggered,
and having them trigger _always_ one some uni-processor (which is the reason
for this patch) to me seems the worse problem of the 2.

Ideally we would have a warn_spin_not_locked or such ...

Regards,

Hans
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists