linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/17] locking/lockdep: Add support for nestable 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20181207095217.GA5307@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:52:17 +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, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.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: [PATCH v2 08/17] locking/lockdep: Add support for nestable
 terminal locks

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 01:55:17PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > There are use cases where we want to allow nesting of one terminal lock
> > underneath another terminal-like lock. That new lock type is called
> > nestable terminal lock which can optionally allow the acquisition of
> > no more than one regular (non-nestable) terminal lock underneath it.
> 
> I think I asked for a more coherent changelog on this. The above is
> still self contradictory and doesn't explain why you'd ever want such a
> 'misfeature' :-)

So maybe call the thing penterminal (contraction of penultimate and
terminal) locks and explain why this annotation is safe -- in great
detail.