linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] driver/core: Fix build error when SRCU and lockdep disabled

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:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:05:07 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] driver/core: Fix build error when SRCU and lockdep
 disabled

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:01:25 -0400
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:

> > some/header/file.h:
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > # define CHECK_DEVICE_LINKS_READ_LOCK_HELD() WARN_ON_ONCE(!defice_links_read_lock_held())
> > #else
> > # define CHECK_DEVICE_LINKS_READ_LOCK_HELD() do { } while (0)
> > #endif
> > 
> > And just use CHECK_DEVICE_LINK_READ_LOCK_HELD() in those places. I
> > agree with Greg. "device_links_read_lock_heald()" should *never*
> > blindly return 1. It's confusing.  
> 
> Ok, then I will update the patch to do:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> int device_links_read_lock_held(void)
> {
> 	return lock_is_held(&device_links_lock);
> }
> #endif  
> 
> That will also solve the build error. And callers can follow the above pattern you shared.

Sounds good!

-- Steve