linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 09/10] x86/resctrl: Pseudo-lock portions of multiple resources

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:38:07 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        kuo-lang.tseng@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 09/10] x86/resctrl: Pseudo-lock portions of multiple
 resources

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:13:46PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> There is a locking order dependency between cpu_hotplug_lock and
> rdtgroup_mutex (cpu_hotplug_lock before rdtgroup_mutex) that has to be
> maintained. To do so in this flow you will find cpus_read_lock() in
> rdtgroup_schemata_write(), so quite a distance from where it is needed.
> 
> Perhaps I should add a comment at the location where the lock is
> required to document where the lock is obtained?

Even better - you can add:

	lockdep_assert_cpus_held();

above it which documents *and* checks too. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.