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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1555083162.161891.83.camel@acm.org> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:32:42 -0700 From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, shenghui <shhuiw@...mail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Make lockdep_register_key() ignore 'debug_locks' On Fri, 2019-04-12 at 07:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > So why don't we add a debug_locks test to lockdep_unregister_key() > instead? The general principle to bring lockdep to a screeching halt when > bugs are detected, ASAP. Hi Ingo, Since this issue was introduced by patch "locking/lockdep: Zap lock classes even with lock debugging disabled" and since that patch is in the tip tree but not yet upstream: do you prefer that I post a version 3 of that patch or do you rather prefer that I post a follow-up patch? Thanks, Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists