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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:24:39 +0900 From: "Byungchul Park" <byungchul.park@....com> To: "'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: <mingo@...nel.org>, <tj@...nel.org>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <david@...morbit.com>, <johannes@...solutions.net>, <oleg@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@....com> Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:12 PM > To: Byungchul Park > Cc: mingo@...nel.org; tj@...nel.org; boqun.feng@...il.com; > david@...morbit.com; johannes@...solutions.net; oleg@...hat.com; linux- > kernel@...r.kernel.org; kernel-team@....com > Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:01:59PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > My point is that we inevitably lose valuable dependencies by yours. > That's > > why I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason you try those > patches?' > > a ton of times. And you have never answered it. > > The only dependencies that are lost are those between the first work and > the setup of the workqueue thread. > > And there obviously _should_ not be any dependencies between those. A 100% right. Since there obviously should not be any, it would be better to check them. So I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason removing the opportunity for that check?'. Overhead? Logical problem? Or want to believe workqueue setup code perfect forever? I mean, is it a problem if we check them? > work should not depend on the setup of the thread. 100% right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists