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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:06:22 +0000 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, raven@...maw.net, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/19] vfs: Add a mount-notification facility [ver #16] Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote: > > What's the best way to write a lockdep assertion? > > > > BUG_ON(!lockdep_is_held(lock)); > > lockdep_assert_held(lock) is the normal way, I think - that will > WARN() if lockdep is enabled and the lock is not held. Okay. But what's the best way with a seqlock_t? It has two dep maps in it. Do I just ignore the one attached to the spinlock? David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists