linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] target: drop spin_lock_assert() + irqs

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: <1521827233.2535.15.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:47:14 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
CC:     "daniel@...stot.me" <daniel@...stot.me>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "williams@...hat.com" <williams@...hat.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lclaudio@...hat.com" <lclaudio@...hat.com>,
        "target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] target: drop spin_lock_assert() + irqs_disabled()
 combo checks

On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 18:36 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> There are a few functions which check for if the lock is held
> (spin_lock_assert()) and the interrupts are disabled (irqs_disabled()).
> > From looking at the code, each function is static, the caller is near by
> 
> and does spin_lock_irq|safe(). As Linus puts it:
> 
> > It's not like this is some function that is exported to random users,
> > and we should check that the calling convention is right.
> > 
> > This looks like "it may have been useful during coding to document
> > things, but it's not useful long-term".
> 
> Remove those checks.

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>