linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new terminal lock type

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: <20181110141734.GF3339@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:17:34 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new terminal lock type

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:34:18PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> A terminal lock is a lock where further locking or unlocking on another
> lock is not allowed. IOW, no forward dependency is permitted.
> 
> With such a restriction in place, we don't really need to do a full
> validation of the lock chain involving a terminal lock.  Instead,
> we just check if there is any further locking or unlocking on another
> lock when a terminal lock is being held.

> @@ -263,6 +270,7 @@ struct held_lock {
>  	unsigned int hardirqs_off:1;
>  	unsigned int references:12;					/* 32 bits */
>  	unsigned int pin_count;
> +	unsigned int flags;
>  };

I'm thinking we can easily steal some bits off of the pin_count field if
we have to.