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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFqt6zY-ahQwj0wUD4KgR+NwTejqNNJ4-gTjAqV7Lr7Wh3dT9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:46:13 +0530
From:   Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <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 5:52 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> 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?

Other than removing an extra check , I don't have any other strong
reason to support this patch.
>
> IMHO it makes it easier to understand the API contract if key top
> level APIs have their assumptions coded in lockdep.

Ok, I will drop this patch. Sorry for the noise.