linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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: <c9f5df1e54bb2bd8f3f0aef86a55deb11888a6a4.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:05:41 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     "daniel@...stot.me" <daniel@...stot.me>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "nab@...ux-iscsi.org" <nab@...ux-iscsi.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] target: drop spin_lock_assert() + irqs_disabled()
 combo checks

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 12:15 +0200, bigeasy@...utronix.de wrote:
> On 2018-03-26 11:13:59 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c b/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
> > > index 9c7bc1ca341a..3d35dad1de2c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_tmr.c
> > 
> > Can you add a comment above the functions though?
> > 
> > /* Expects to have se_cmd->se_sess->sess_cmd_lock held */
> 
> I could. I haven't heard from Bart / Nicholas about their opinion. I
> know, we do this other places but Bart was against this kind of
> annotation in 2/2 of this thread.
> So I am waiting to hear from them :)

The names of the two functions touched by patch 1/2 start with a double
underscore. That by itself is already a hint that these should be called with
a lock held (I know that this is not a universal convention in the Linux
kernel). I'm fine either way - either with patch 1/2 as posted or patch 1/2
with the above comment added.

Bart.