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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20190413082955.GA112331@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 13 Apr 2019 10:29:55 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....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'


* Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:

> 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?

The crash fix is now upstream, mind sending a followup patch for the 
warning fix?

Thanks,

	Ingo