linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal locks

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: <20181110141045.GD3339@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:10:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal
 locks

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> BTW., if you are interested in more radical approaches to optimize 
> lockdep, we could also add a static checker via objtool driven call graph 
> analysis, and mark those locks terminal that we can prove are terminal.
> 
> This would require the unified call graph of the kernel image and of all 
> modules to be examined in a final pass, but that's within the principal 
> scope of objtool. (This 'final pass' could also be done during bootup, at 
> least in initial versions.)

Something like this is needed for objtool LTO support as well. I just
dread the build time 'regressions' this will introduce :/

The final link pass is already by far the most expensive part (as
measured in wall-time) of building a kernel, adding more work there
would really suck :/