linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/24] liblockdep: Rename "trywlock" into "trywrlock"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181213194143.GK2746@sasha-vm>
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:41:43 -0500
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
        longman@...hat.com, johannes.berg@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/24] liblockdep: Rename "trywlock" into "trywrlock"

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:38:31AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 12:19 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:11:29PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> > This patch avoids that the following compiler warning is reported while
>> > compiling the lockdep unit tests:
>> >
>> > include/liblockdep/rwlock.h: In function 'liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywlock':
>> > include/liblockdep/rwlock.h:66:9: warning: implicit declaration of function 'pthread_rwlock_trywlock'; did you mean 'pthread_rwlock_trywrlock'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>> >  return pthread_rwlock_trywlock(&lock->rwlock) == 0 ? 1 : 0;
>> >         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >         pthread_rwlock_trywrlock
>>
>> Hm, I'm not sure why you're seeing that error (I'm not). We define
>> pthread_rwlock_trywlock() in:
>>
>> 	include/liblockdep/rwlock.h:static inline int liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywlock(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock)
>>
>> All the tests also seem to pass for me. Did you see failures on your
>> end?
>
>What I saw is that due to the typo that is fixed by this patch that linking
>of the tests failed and that the error message that was reported because
>starting the tests failed made the tests pass due to the following line in
>run_tests.sh:
>
>if [ $(timeout 1 ./lockdep ./tests/$testname 2>&1 | wc -l) -gt 0 ]; then

Ah, I see. Thank you!

--
Thanks,
Sasha