linux-kernel - Re: [patch part-II V2 08/13] tracing: Provide lockdep less trace_hardirqs

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:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:21:20 +0100
From:   Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch part-II V2 08/13] tracing: Provide lockdep less
 trace_hardirqs_on/off() variants


On 3/10/20 12:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:55:57AM +0100, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>> Shouldn't trace_hardirqs_on() be updated to call __trace_hardirqs_on()? It's the same
>> code except for the lockdep call.
> 
> Fell into that one too initially. Look again. :)
> 

Got it, rcuidle :) So maybe a better function name or a comment could avoid
this confusion.

Anyway, Reviewed-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>

alex.