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]
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:05:47 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        alexander.levin@...rosoft.com,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>, duyuyang@...il.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, willy@...radead.org,
        david@...morbit.com, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        bfields@...ldses.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Are you good with Lockdep?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:58:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > FYI, roughly Lockdep is doing:
> > >
> > >    1. Dependency check
> > >    2. Lock usage correctness check (including RCU)
> > >    3. IRQ related usage correctness check with IRQFLAGS
> > >
> > > 2 and 3 should be there forever which is subtle and have gotten matured.
> > > But 1 is not. I've been talking about 1. But again, it's not about
> > > replacing it right away but having both for a while. I'm gonna try my
> > > best to make it better.
> >
> > And I believe lockdep does handle 1. Perhaps show some tangible use case
> > that you want to cover that you do not believe that lockdep can handle. If
> > lockdep cannot handle it, it will show us where lockdep is lacking. If it
> > can handle it, it will educate you on other ways that lockdep can be
> > helpful in your development ;-)

1) OK. Lockdep might work with trylock well.
2) Definitely Lockdep cannot do what Cross-release was doing.
3) For readlock handling, let me be back later and give you examples. I
   need check current Lockdep code first. But I have to all-stop what
   I'm doing at the moment because of a very big personal issue, which
   is a sad thing.

Sorry for the late response.

Thank you,
Byungchul

> 
> Yes. That's the best thing I can do for all of us. I will.
> 
> I already did exactly the same thing while I was developing cross-release.
> But I'm willing to do it again with the current Lockdep code.
> 
> But not today. It's over mid-night. Good night~
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ