linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 2/2] 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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:38:17 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     johannes.berg@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 2/2] lockdep: Remove unnecessary acquisitions
 wrt workqueue flush

Hello,

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 04:54:35PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:51:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > The workqueue added manual acquisitions to catch deadlock cases.
> > Now crossrelease was introduced, some of those are redundant, since
> > wait_for_completion() already includes the acquisition for itself.
> > Removed it.
> 
> I think manual annotations for wait_for_completion() should be removed
> in this way, since it's already embedded in wait_for_completion(), now.
> Don't you think so?

As long as we have the same level of protection, simpler code is of
course preferable.  That said, I haven't followed the discussion
closely and don't want to apply it without Peter's ack.  Peter?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun