linux-kernel - Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 05/17] lockdep: Extend __bfs() to work with multiple kinds of dependencies

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: <20180223111505.GU25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:15:05 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC tip/locking/lockdep v5 05/17] lockdep: Extend __bfs() to
 work with multiple kinds of dependencies

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:02:09PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > 	entry->have_xr = !(has_nn(entry->dep) || (!is_rr && has_rn(entry->dep)));
> > 	              := !has_nn(entry->dep) && (is_rr || !has_rn(entry->dep))
> > 
> 
> so it seems that we have to introduce is_{nn,rn,nx}(), I'm not sure
> introducing three one-off helpers is a good direction to go. One benefit
> of using pick_dep() is that we can keep the whole logic in one function.
> Thoughts?

Urgh, I see...

Damn this is confusing, I'm sure there's something simple we're missing.
Let me go stare at the earlier patches again.