linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock

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: <20151014110717.GT17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:07:17 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mutex: make mutex_lock_nested an inline function

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:20:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > Uuh, I just looked at next and saw this regulator_lock_supply()
> > function. How is that limited? subclass must be <8 otherwise bad things
> > happen.
> 
> Can we please get some more discoverable documentation of the arbitrary
> limits in the lockdep code? 

include/linux/lockdep.h:#define MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES          8UL

Also, it will give a runtime warn if you ever do hit that.

> I seem to keep seeing code that bumps into
> surprising limits like this and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know
> about them except through finding out after the fact or trawling the
> code every time someone touches locking.

Not knowing what other limits you've hit, I'm not entirely sure how to
help out there.

> I would be very surprised to see a system that pushes over 8 locks,
> while there's nothing actually preventing it system design
> considerations mean that even four cascaded supplies are pretty
> unlikely so we should be fine.  Every time you add a new level of
> regulation you're both increasing the load on regulators up the chain
> (which means they need to be bigger and more expensive) and except in
> the case of a DCDC supplying an LDO (which only works to one level)
> you're going to be decreasing the efficiency of the system.  If we get
> to that point we can worry about what to do.

OK I suppose.
--
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/