linux-kernel - Re: "locking/lockdep: Consolidate lock usage bit initialization" is buggy

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: <CAHttsrYCD1xvL6hf6dXZ_6rB2pEra0HDZ+m5n8EMQr3+5AShnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jun 2019 11:21:58 +0800
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "locking/lockdep: Consolidate lock usage bit initialization" is buggy

Thanks for the report, but

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 05:14, Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
>
> The linux-next commit "locking/lockdep: Consolidate lock usage bit
> initialization" [1] will always generate a warning below.

I never had such warning.

> Looking through the
> commit that when mark_irqflags() returns 1 and check = 1, it will do one less
> mark_lock() call than it used to.

The four cases:

1. When check == 1 and mark_irqflags() returns 1;
2. When check == 1 and mark_irqflags() returns 0;
3. When check == 0 and mark_irqflags() returns 1;
4. When check == 0 and mark_irqflags() returns 0;

Before and after have exactly the same code to do.