linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] workqueue: Add interface for user-defined workqueue lockdep map

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: <ZruuaIPsEH83luku@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:05:12 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
Cc: intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
	christian.koenig@....com, ltuikov89@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] workqueue: Add interface for user-defined
 workqueue lockdep map

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 06:55:20PM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:52:26AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 03:28:25PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > Add an interface for a user-defined workqueue lockdep map, which is
> > > helpful when multiple workqueues are created for the same purpose. This
> > > also helps avoid leaking lockdep maps on each workqueue creation.
> > > 
> > > v2:
> > >  - Add alloc_workqueue_lockdep_map (Tejun)
> > > v3:
> > >  - Drop __WQ_USER_OWNED_LOCKDEP (Tejun)
> > >  - static inline alloc_ordered_workqueue_lockdep_map (Tejun)
> > > 
> > > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
> > 
> > 1-3 look fine to me. Would applying them to wq/for-6.12 and pulling them
> > from the dri tree work?
> > 
> 
> Yes, I wanted to get this into 6.12 as I believe we are removing
> forceprobe for our driver and it would be good to have this in for that.
> 
> Any idea what this is about though [1]?

It looks like misattribution to me. I'll apply 1-3 to wq/for-6.12.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun