linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Make lockdep_register_key() ignore 'debug

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: <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.