linux-kernel - Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation V3

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180717150908.GA22502@lst.de>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:09:08 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation V3

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:04:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:17:53PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> this series adds a strategic lockdep_assert_held to __wake_up_common
> > >> to ensure callers really do hold the wait_queue_head lock when calling
> > >> the unlocked wake_up variants.  It turns out epoll did not do this
> > >> for a fairly common path (hit all the time by systemd during bootup),
> > >> so the second patch fixed this instance as well.
> > >
> > > I ran into these changes because of patch 1 getting rid of ep->lock. Is
> > > there any reason why this series was never picked up?
> > 
> > I'd love to see this merged, but I never heard back about it.
> 
> Seeing how it touched fs bits, I was expecting this to go through the
> vfs tree; was that not the intended target?

I don't really care which way it goes, although tip is more reliably
at picking up changes than the vfs tree..