linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: Fix false positive lockdep warning with sb_internal & fs

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]

Message-ID: <20200619132155.GA27677@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:21:55 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: Fix false positive lockdep warning with
 sb_internal & fs_reclaim

I find it really confusing that we record this in current->flags.
per-thread state makes total sense for not dipping into fs reclaim.
But for annotating something related to memory allocation passing flags
seems a lot more descriptive to me, as it is about particular locks.