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]

Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:22:06 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:29:25PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > 3. I think this is more general approach because _any_ random bit in 
> > >    memory can be used as a lock. Do we need to restrict where the bit
> > >    is so that we can place lockdep_map explicitly around the bit?
> > 
> > Again, yuck!
> 
> You mean we should never provide lockdep checking mechanism tranparently,
> but the user of bit-based lock must add lockdep_map manually, case by
> case. Right? Do I understand correctly? If so, I wonder why?

I will stop it if it cannot provide any valuable things even I wonder.
I seriously asked it since I wonder it. What do you think about my
question? Is there something I missed?

Or can I proceed it after fixing my bug you pointed?