linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Drop lockdep_assert_cpus_held call from arch_update_cpu

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.2.20.1710051435530.2083@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:38:55 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Daniel Black <daniel.black@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Drop lockdep_assert_cpus_held call from
 arch_update_cpu_topology

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

> It turns out that not all paths calling arch_update_cpu_topology hold
> cpu_hotplug_lock, but that's ok because those paths aren't supposed to race
> with any concurrent hotplug events.
> 
> Callers of arch_update_cpu_topology are expected to know what they are
> doing when they call the function without holding the lock, so remove the
> lockdep warning.

"Expected to know what they are doing" is not really a good approach as
it's way too simple to screw things up.

You might consider to have two functions where one does the check and the
other does not, but I leave that to the PPC maintainers.

Thanks,

	tglx