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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:59:55 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC/INCOMPLETE 01/13] context_tracking: Add context_tracking_assert_state * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:41:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > > This will let us sprinkle sanity checks around the kernel without > > > making too much of a mess. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> > > > --- > > > include/linux/context_tracking.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking.h b/include/linux/context_tracking.h > > > index 2821838256b4..0fbea4b152e1 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/context_tracking.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/context_tracking.h > > > @@ -57,6 +57,13 @@ static inline void context_tracking_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev, > > > if (context_tracking_is_enabled()) > > > __context_tracking_task_switch(prev, next); > > > } > > > + > > > +static inline void context_tracking_assert_state(enum ctx_state state) > > > +{ > > > + rcu_lockdep_assert(!context_tracking_is_enabled() || > > > + this_cpu_read(context_tracking.state) == state, > > > + "context tracking state was wrong"); > > > +} > > > > Please don't introduce assert() style debug check interfaces! > > > > (And RCU should be fixed too I suspect.) > > The thought is to rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() > by analogy to WARN()? Easy to do if so! Or am I missing the point? Yeah, and inverting the condition. Assuming the condition was assert()-style inverted to begin with! :-) and lockdep should be fixed too I suspect, lockdep_assert_held() was really a poorly chosen name I suspect, it should be 'lockdep_check_held()' or so? It has very little to do with the assert() interface. Thanks, Ingo -- 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