linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1702101111001.2050@agoins-DiGiTS>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:17:39 -0800
From:   Alex Goins <agoins@...dia.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC:     Andy Ritger <ARitger@...dia.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior

This should work.

    Reviewed-by: Alex Goins <agoins@...dia.com>

Thanks,
Alex

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> On 2017-02-10 10:09:29 [-0800], Andy Ritger wrote:
> > Is the
> > 
> >     WARN_ON(rt_mutex_is_locked(lock));
> > 
> > in rt_mutex_destroy() valuable in non-CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES kernels,
> > such that it would be better to always call it, and not noop away mutex_destroy()
> > non-CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES kernels?  I thought that was your objection to
> > Alex's original patch.
> 
> It kind of was…
> So first I removed the GPL symbol. Then I wasn't too happy about it
> especially since it was not introduced as part of RT. So I reverted that
> changed and aligned with mainline behaviour (the mutex_rt.h hunk). But
> then I noticed that with CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n and
> CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES=y we still have a regression compared to !RT and
> this was the initial motivation to fix things.
> Then I got curious why mutex_lock() (which is essential rt_mutex_lock())
> works and noticed the wrapper around it. And while looking at it I
> decided to go back to strip the GPL part from export symbol instead of
> adding a wrapper. And here I am.
> Then I was looking at the patch and decided to align with mainline (and
> keep that one hunk) in case Ingo ask for his GPL symbol.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > - Andy
> Sebastian
>