linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from lockdep/lock

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: <CAM9d7cj=tj6pA48q_wkQOGn-2vUc9FRj63bMBOm5R7OukmMbTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:45:59 -0800
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] locking: Separate lock tracepoints from
 lockdep/lock_stat (v1)

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
> ----- On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Namhyung Kim namhyung@...nel.org wrote:
> > I'm also concerning dynamic allocated locks in a data structure.
> > If we keep the info in a hash table, we should delete it when the
> > lock is gone.  I'm not sure we have a good place to hook it up all.
>
> I was wondering about this use case as well. Can we make it mandatory to
> declare the lock "class" (including the name) statically, even though the
> lock per-se is allocated dynamically ? Then the initialization of the lock
> embedded within the data structure would simply refer to the lock class
> definition.

Isn't it still the same if we have static lock classes that the entry needs
to be deleted from the hash table when it frees the data structure?
I'm more concerned about free than alloc as there seems to be no
API to track that in a place.

Thanks,
Namhyung