linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm.c : Remove additional check for lockdep_assert

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:22:10 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc:     jglisse@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm.c : Remove additional check for
 lockdep_assert_held()

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> walk_page_range() already has a check for lockdep_assert_held().
> So additional check for lockdep_assert_held() can be removed from
> hmm_range_fault().

Is there a reason why you think this redundancy is bad?

IMHO it makes it easier to understand the API contract if key top
level APIs have their assumptions coded in lockdep.

Jason