linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Raise maximum number of memory controllers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:35:11 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Justin Ernst <justin.ernst@....com>, russ.anderson@....com,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Raise maximum number of memory controllers

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 08:07:33PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Now I remember. I did that for lockdep because it wants statically
> allocated memory. I'll try to think of something tomorrow.

Some more info after some staring:

We could've made the lock_class_key only static storage so that lockdep
is happy but then struct bus_type embeds the *whole* lock_class_key and
not a pointer to it.

Which leaves us with either:

* this fix postponing the problem

* or Greg coming and saying, you're using bus_type all wrong and you
shouldn't and you should remove it completely! :-)

Which would be much better.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.