linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt workqueue flush

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: <C80AB6F618D91B4E8F391CB202C12DFD1ED20A9B30@LGEVEXMBHQSVC1.LGE.NET>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2017 16:36:18 +0900
From:   박병철/선임연구원/SW Platform(연)AOT팀(byungchul.park@....com) 
        <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
        "johannes.berg@...el.com" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@....com" <kernel-team@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt
 workqueue flush

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:26 PM
> To: Byungchul Park
> Cc: tj@...nel.org; johannes.berg@...el.com; mingo@...nel.org;
> tglx@...utronix.de; oleg@...hat.com; david@...morbit.com; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; kernel-team@....com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions wrt
> workqueue flush
> 
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 11:29:14AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 
> > Also, lock_map_acquire() in process_one_work() is too strong for that
> > purpose. lock_map_acquire_might() is enough. Replaced it.
> 
> NAK!! traditional annotations are superior to cross-release. They are not
> timing dependent.

You seem to mis-understand this. This also make them timing independent.
I also agree that we need timing independent report in workqueue code.
That's actually why I propose this patch.

I just tried to do it in a right way.