[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <201912301042.FB806E1133@keescook>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:43:20 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/refcount: add sparse annotations to dec-and-lock
functions
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 12:49:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:29:22AM -0600, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> >
> > Wrap refcount_dec_and_lock() and refcount_dec_and_lock_irqsave() with
> > macros using __cond_lock() so that 'sparse' doesn't report warnings
> > about unbalanced locking when using them.
> >
> > This is the same thing that's done for their atomic_t equivalents.
> >
> > Don't annotate refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock(), because mutexes don't
> > currently have sparse annotations.
>
> I so f'ing hate that __cond_lock() crap. Previously I've suggested
> fixing sparse instead of making such an atrocious trainwreck of the
> code.
Ew, I never noticed these before. That is pretty ugly. Can't __acquire()
be used directly in the functions instead of building the nasty
wrappers?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists