linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Quiet gcc about dangerous __builtin_return

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160915111724.548852e4@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:17:24 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Quiet gcc about dangerous
 __builtin_return_address() operations

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:08:10 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 09:54:50AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > Can you pull this patch in? It probably should go to stable as well.  
> 
> I'm not sure how this relates to lockdep, which is why I mostly ignored
> the patch.

It's basically about get_lock_parent_ip() which is used for backtraces
of locks, and thus for debugging locks, so I really didn't know what to
label it as. Should the subject then just be:

   lock stack traces: ...

??

-- Steve