linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: add lockdep asserts

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=McYim_fkvatZTSzXa04-=7OQ73PjMVh951uR_engoE94A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:52:41 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: sim: add lockdep asserts

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:45 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
>
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
>
> We have three functions in gpio-sim that are called with the device lock
> already held. We use the "_unlocked" suffix in their names to indicate
> that. This has proven to be confusing though as the naming convention in
> the kernel varies between using "_locked" or "_unlocked" for this
> purpose. Naming convention also doesn't enforce anything. Let's remove
> the suffix and add lockdep annotation at the top of these functions.
>
> This makes it clear the function requires a lock to be held (and which
> one specifically!) as well as results in a warning if it's not the case.
> The only place where the information is lost is the place where the
> function is called but the caller doesn't care about that information
> anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> ---

Patch queued for next.

Bart