linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking in do_write_seqcount_begin

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: <d9b7c170-ed0d-5d37-e099-20d233115943@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:54:12 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.co>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking
 in do_write_seqcount_begin_nested()

On 2023/06/24 2:12, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>  include/linux/seqlock.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> index 3926e90279477..d778af83c8f36 100644
> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> @@ -512,8 +512,8 @@ do {									\
>  
>  static inline void do_write_seqcount_begin_nested(seqcount_t *s, int subclass)
>  {
> -	do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(s);
>  	seqcount_acquire(&s->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +	do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(s);
>  }
>  
>  /**

Why not to do the same on the end side?

 static inline void do_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
 {
- 	seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
 	do_raw_write_seqcount_end(s);
+	seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
 }