linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] cxl/acpi: Add root device lockdep validation

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, 25 Apr 2022 09:05:53 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] cxl/acpi: Add root device lockdep validation

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:33 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:27:52AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > ...so I'm going to drop it and just add a comment about the
> > expectations. As Peter said there's already a multitude of ways to
> > cause false positive / negative results with lockdep so this is just
> > one more area where one needs to be careful and understand the lock
> > context they might be overriding.
>
> One safe-guard might be to check the class you're overriding is indeed
> __no_validate__, and WARN if not. Then the unconditional reset is
> conistent.
>
> Then, if/when, that WARN ever triggers you can revisit all this.

Ok, that does seem to need a dummy definition of lockdep_match_class()
in the CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n case, but that seems worth it to me for the
sanity check.