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: <20230626081254.XmorFrhs@linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:12:54 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "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.com>, 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 15:54:12 [+0900], Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> 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_);
>  }

I don't have a compelling argument for doing it. It is probably better
to release the lock from lockdep's point of view and then really release
it (so it can't be acquired before it is released).

Looking at other locking primitives (spin_lock_unlock(),
mutex_unlock(),…) that is what they do in the unlock path: lockdep
annotation followed by the actual operation. Therefore I would keep the
current ordering to remain in-sync with the other primitives.

Sebastian