linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: skip lockdep wq dependency in cancel_work

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: <1534910543.25523.50.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Wed, 22 Aug 2018 06:02:23 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: skip lockdep wq dependency in
 cancel_work_sync()

On Wed, 2018-08-22 at 11:45 +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:

> That should've been adjusted as well when Ingo reverted Cross-release.

I can't really say.

> It would be much easier to add each pair, acquire/release, before
> wait_for_completion() in both flush_workqueue() and flush_work() than
> reverting the whole commit.

The commit doesn't do much more than this though.

> What's lacking is only lockdep annotations for wait_for_completion().

No, I disagree. Like I said before, we need the lockdep annotations on
the WQ even when we don't actually create/use the completion, so we can
catch issues even when they don't actually happen.

johannes