linux-kernel - Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:52:03 +0100
From:   Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:47 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:15:27PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > Also, any opinions on the name of the new helper? Perhaps
> > mutex_is_held()? Or mutex_is_locked_by_current()?
>
> lockdep_assert_held*() and friends work on mutexes just fine.

Hm, good point, although it will only work if CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y, which
is usually not enabled on production kernels... But maybe it doesn't
make sense to do the check on non-debug kernels anyway?

--
Ondrej Mosnacek
Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.