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  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:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:47:51 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, will@...nel.org
Cc:     npiggin@...il.com, elver@...gle.com, jgross@...e.com,
        paulmck@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, svens@...ux.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] lockdep: Only trace IRQ edges

On Fri, Aug 21 2020 at 10:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now, given that the only reason to use the raw_* variant is because you don't
> want tracing, A) seems like a weird option (although it can be done), so we
> pick B) and declare any code that ends up doing:
>
> 	raw_local_irq_save()
> 	local_irq_save()
> 	lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> broken. AFAICT this problem has existed forever, the only reason it came
> up is because I changed IRQ tracing vs lockdep recursion and the first

Who is 'I'? I know you made that change and you also rewrote the
changelog, but I only figured that out after scrolling further down. As
this patch is authored by Nick, the above is simply inconsistent. Can we
please have just a reference to the commit which changed that code
instead of a puzzle?

Other than that:

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists