linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs

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: <20190525181818.GA225569@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 25 May 2019 14:18:18 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Remove some notrace RCU APIs

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:14:07PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[snip]
> > That aside, if we are going to change the name of an API that is
> > used 160 places throughout the tree, we would need to have a pretty
> > good justification.  Without such a justification, it will just look
> > like pointless churn to the various developers and maintainers on the
> > receiving end of the patches.
> 
> Actually, the API name change is not something I want to do, it is Steven
> suggestion. My suggestion is let us just delete _raw_notrace and just use the
> _raw API for tracing, since _raw doesn't do any tracing anyway. Steve pointed
> that _raw_notrace does sparse checking unlike _raw, but I think that isn't an
> issue since _raw doesn't do such checking at the moment anyway.. (if possible
> check my cover letter again for details/motivation of this series).

Come to think of it, if we/I succeed in adding lockdep checking in _raw, then
we can just keep the current APIs and not delete anything. And we can have
_raw_notrace skip the lockdep checks. The sparse check question would still
be an open one though, since _raw doesn't do sparse checks at the moment
unlike _raw_notrace as Steve pointed.

Thanks,

 - Joel