linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] lockdep: Implement bitlock map allocator

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: <20160630125919.GD30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:59:19 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de,
	sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	minchan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] lockdep: Implement bitlock map allocator

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:55:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:

> +struct bitlock_map {
> +	struct hlist_node	hash_entry;
> +	unsigned long		bitaddr; /* ID */
> +	struct lockdep_map	map;
> +	int			ref; /* reference count */
> +};

So this is effectively bigger than just adding a struct lockdep_map into
whatever structure holds the bit spinlock to begin with.

What is the gain?

> +static inline unsigned long get_bitaddr(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
> +{
> +	return (unsigned long)((char *)addr + bitnum);
> +}

And given you keep these lockdep_map thingies out-of-line, the original
structure remains dense and thus the above munging can easily result in
collisions.

Now, I suppose its rather unlikely, but given its entirely silent if it
happens, this is bad.