linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation

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: <20170904020839.GN3240@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:08:39 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, david@...morbit.com,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, oleg@...hat.com,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:30:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:38:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:51:48PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:16:29PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> It would be gone _only_ at the time the history overrun, and then it
> > > >> will be built again. So, you are wrong.
> > > 
> > > s/it will be built again/the acquisition will be added into the xhlock
> > > array again/
> > > 
> > > Now, better to understand?
> > 
> > No, I still don't get it. How are we ever going to get the workqueue
> > thread setup code back after its spooled out?
> > 
> > > > How will it ever be build again? You only ever spawn the worker thread
> > > > _ONCE_, then it runs lots and lots of works.
> > > >
> > > > We _could_ go fix it, but I really don't see it being worth the time and
> > > 
> > > We don't need to fix it spending time and effort. Just *revert* all your
> > > wrong patches.
> > 
> > And get tangled up with the workqueue annotation again, no thanks.
> > Having the first few works see the thread setup isn't worth it.
> > 
> > And your work_id annotation had the same problem.
> 
> I keep asking you for an example because I really understand you.

I keep asking you for an example because I really want to understand you.

> 
>    Fix my problematic example with your patches,
> 
>    or,
> 
>    Show me a problematic scenario with my original code, you expect.
> 
> Whatever, it would be helpful to understand you.