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  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]
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 11:52:57 -0700
From:   Sultan Alsawaf <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <>,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Daniel Colascione <>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <>,
        Tim Murray <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <>,
        Todd Kjos <>,
        Martijn Coenen <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        LKML <>,
        "open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <>,
        linux-mm <>,
        kernel-team <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:32:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I'm confused why you did this?

Oleg said that debug_locks_off() could've been called and thus prevented
lockdep complaints about simple_lmk from appearing. To eliminate any possibility
of that, I disabled debug_locks_off().

Oleg also said that __lock_acquire() could return early if lock debugging were
somehow turned off after lockdep reported one bug. To mitigate any possibility
of that as well, I threw in the BUG_ON() for good measure.

I think at this point it's pretty clear that lockdep truly isn't complaining
about simple_lmk's locking pattern, and that lockdep's lack of complaints isn't
due to it being mysteriously turned off...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists