linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: Replace spin_is

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:36:50 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Lance Roy <ldr709@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: Replace spin_is_locked() with
 lockdep

On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:18:10PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:58PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> > also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@...il.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> > index 9aa713629387..771d4ca96dda 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void debug_mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> >  
> >  void debug_mutex_wake_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> >  {
> > -	SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock));
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
> >  	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&lock->wait_list));
> >  	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(waiter->magic != waiter);
> >  	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void debug_mutex_free_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> >  void debug_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> >  			    struct task_struct *task)
> >  {
> > -	SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock));
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
> 
> I think it's a good idea to replace debug usage of spin_is_locked() with
> calls to lockdep, but I wonder whether that means that DEBUG_MUTEXES should
> select LOCKDEP so that we don't lose coverage?
> 
> What do you think?

Makes sense to me!

But given that this was accepted into -tip, I have dropped it from my tree.

							Thanx, Paul