linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] regmap: add configurable lock class key for lockdep

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: <558C229D.4090409@metafoo.de>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:47:41 +0200
From:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>,
	Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bard Liao <bardliao@...ltek.com>,
	Oder Chiou <oder_chiou@...ltek.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] regmap: add configurable lock class key for lockdep

On 06/25/2015 05:33 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 05:03:00PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>> On 06/25/2015 03:21 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
>>> wouldn't it be better to use the mutex_lock_nested() and co to explicitly
>>> express your hierarchy?
>
>> That would require that the hierarchy is known in advance. The hierarchy
>> depends on the hardware topology. Different systems will have different
>> hierarchies where the relationship between locks can change and it will be
>> hard to find a hierarchy that works across all topologies.
>
> It depends on what you use as the key for the nested locking stuff.  If
> you assign a key per regmap (casting the pointer to an integer, using an
> IDR or something).  I don't know if that creates problems for the
> locking code, I'd not expect so but then I'd not have expected the
> problem in the first place.

The maximum number of subclasses is 8 per lockclass, so a IDR that 
increments which each created regmap instance wouldn't really work.

And while on the other hand we probably wont have a hierarchy deeper than 8 
nested regmap instances it is not trivial to figure out which instance is at 
which level.

>
> As far as I can tell we're likely to end up needing a key per regmap or
> something similar.
>

Since the number of lockdep classes itself is also limited we should avoid 
creating extra lockdep classes when we can. I think the approach which 
having the option of specifying a lockdep class in the regmap config will be 
ok. The only case it can't handle if we nest instances with the same config, 
but I don't really see valid use scases for that at the moment.
--
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/