linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

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: <20170814111046.GM20323@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:10:46 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:57:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Change from v7
> > > > 	- rebase on latest tip/sched/core (Jul 26 2017)
> > > > 	- apply peterz's suggestions
> > > > 	- simplify code of crossrelease_{hist/soft/hard}_{start/end}
> > > > 	- exclude a patch avoiding redundant links
> > > > 	- exclude a patch already applied onto the base
> > > 
> > > Ok, it's looking pretty good here now, there's one thing I'd like you to change, 
> > > please remove all the new Kconfig dependencies:
> > > 
> > >  CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE=y
> > >  CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE=y
> > > 
> > > and make it all part of PROVE_LOCKING, like most of the other lock debugging bits.
> > 
> > OK. I will remove them. What about CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGELOCK? Should I also
> > remove it?
> 
> So I'd only remove the forced _configurability_ - we can still keep those 
> variables just fine. They modularize the code and they might be useful later on if 
> for some reason there's some really bad performance aspect that would make one of 
> these lockdep components to be configured out by default.
> 
> Just make the user interface sane - i.e. only one switch needed to enable full 
> lockdep. Internal modularization is fine, as long as it's not ugly and the user is 
> not burdened with it.

Agree.

Thank you,
Byungchul