linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww

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: <20161206151459.GU3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2016 16:14:59 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] locking/ww_mutex: Set use_ww_ctx even when
 locking without a context

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:47PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -222,11 +222,7 @@ extern int __must_check __ww_mutex_lock_interruptible(struct ww_mutex *lock,
>   */
>  static inline int ww_mutex_lock(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>  {
> -	if (ctx)
> -		return __ww_mutex_lock(lock, ctx);
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&lock->base);
> -	return 0;
> +	return __ww_mutex_lock(lock, ctx);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -262,10 +258,7 @@ static inline int ww_mutex_lock(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ct
>  static inline int __must_check ww_mutex_lock_interruptible(struct ww_mutex *lock,
>  							   struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>  {
> -	if (ctx)
> -		return __ww_mutex_lock_interruptible(lock, ctx);
> -	else
> -		return mutex_lock_interruptible(&lock->base);
> +	return __ww_mutex_lock_interruptible(lock, ctx);
>  }
>  

After this the entire point of __ww_mutex_lock*() is gone, right? Might
as well rename them to ww_mutex_lock() and remove this pointless
wrapper.