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.2.20.1702112114180.3734@nanos>
Date:   Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:15:03 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Andy Ritger <aritger@...dia.com>,
        Alex Goins <agoins@...dia.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> 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.
> 
> tglx and Peter Zijlstra are main co-authors of kernel/locking/rtmutex.c, and every 
> author (copyright holder) has to agree to changing a GPL export of a kernel 
> subsystem's API to a non-GPL export.

I'm fine with that change as it really hurts users and makes RT behave the
same way as mainline.

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Thanks,

	tglx