linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] locking/lockdep: Unify the return values of check_wait

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]

Date:   Sun, 11 Jul 2021 22:14:29 +0800
From:   Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
        longman@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] locking/lockdep: Unify the return values of check_wait_context()

From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>

Unity the return values of check_wait_context() as check_prev_add(),
check_irq_usage(), etc. 1 means no bug, 0 means there is a bug.

The return values of print_lock_invalid_wait_context() are unnecessary,
remove them.

Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index bf1c00c881e4..8b50da42f2c6 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -4635,16 +4635,16 @@ static inline short task_wait_context(struct task_struct *curr)
 	return LD_WAIT_MAX;
 }
 
-static int
+static void
 print_lock_invalid_wait_context(struct task_struct *curr,
 				struct held_lock *hlock)
 {
 	short curr_inner;
 
 	if (!debug_locks_off())
-		return 0;
+		return;
 	if (debug_locks_silent)
-		return 0;
+		return;
 
 	pr_warn("\n");
 	pr_warn("=============================\n");
@@ -4664,8 +4664,6 @@ print_lock_invalid_wait_context(struct task_struct *curr,
 
 	pr_warn("stack backtrace:\n");
 	dump_stack();
-
-	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -4691,7 +4689,7 @@ static int check_wait_context(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 	int depth;
 
 	if (!next_inner || next->trylock)
-		return 0;
+		return 1;
 
 	if (!next_outer)
 		next_outer = next_inner;
@@ -4723,10 +4721,12 @@ static int check_wait_context(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (next_outer > curr_inner)
-		return print_lock_invalid_wait_context(curr, next);
+	if (next_outer > curr_inner) {
+		print_lock_invalid_wait_context(curr, next);
+		return 0;
+	}
 
-	return 0;
+	return 1;
 }
 
 #else /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
@@ -4962,7 +4962,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
 #endif
 	hlock->pin_count = pin_count;
 
-	if (check_wait_context(curr, hlock))
+	if (!check_wait_context(curr, hlock))
 		return 0;
 
 	/* Initialize the lock usage bit */
-- 
2.30.2