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]
Message-ID: <20200313122210.GB31668@ziepe.ca>
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ