linux-kernel - Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP

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:   Sat, 18 Jan 2020 12:41:25 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+aaa6fa4949cc5d9b7b25@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:09 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
> Yes, I fully agree with this.
> If we calculate the subclass for lock_nested() very well, I think we
> might use static lockdep key for addr_list_lock_key too. I think
> "dev->upper_level" and "dev->lower_level" might be used as subclass.
> These values are updated recursively in master/nomaster operation.

Great! I will think about this too. At least I will remove the other keys
for net-next.

Thanks.