linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK

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: <20161003154514.GF3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:45:14 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@....com,
        xlpang@...hat.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        jdesfossez@...icios.com, bristot@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] futex: Rewrite FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:36:24AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!atomic_inc_not_zero(&pi_state->refcount));
> 
> Don't we have a rule where WARN_ON() and BUG_ON() should never have
> "side effects"? That is, they should only check values, but their
> contents should not update values.

not that I'm aware, there's various places in the kernel (including
kref.h) that relies on WARN_ON*() having side effects.