linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert

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: <20140910130832.GY4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:08:32 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/26] locking: Add non-fatal spin lock assert

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 07:02:10AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 01:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:50:01AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>> So a lockdep-only assert is unlikely to draw attention to existing bugs,
> >>> especially in established drivers.
> >>
> >> By the same logic lockdep will not find locking errors in established
> >> drivers.
> > 
> > Indeed, this patch is ill-advised in several ways:
> > 
> >   - it extends an API variant that we want to phase
> > 
> >   - emits a warning even if say lockdep has already emitted a
> >     warning and locking state is not guaranteed to be consistent. 
> > 
> >   - makes the kernel more expensive once fully debugged, in that
> >     non-fatal checks are unconditional.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> One thing: I'm not seeing how lockdep_assert_held() switches off once
> the warning has been emitted? Is the caller expected to construct their
> own _ONCE tags?

Indeed, it does not do that. I suppose you can add
lockdep_assert_held_once() or somesuch if you think the once thing is
important.
--
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/