linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 11/24] locking/mutex: Support Clang's capability analysis

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: <20250207083119.GV7145@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 09:31:19 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 11/24] locking/mutex: Support Clang's capability
 analysis

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:10:05PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:

>  extern int __must_check mutex_lock_interruptible_nested(struct mutex *lock,
> +					unsigned int subclass) __cond_acquires(0, lock);
>  extern int __must_check mutex_lock_killable_nested(struct mutex *lock,
> +					unsigned int subclass) __cond_acquires(0, lock);

> +extern int __must_check mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock) __cond_acquires(0, lock);
> +extern int __must_check mutex_lock_killable(struct mutex *lock) __cond_acquires(0, lock);

> +extern int mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock) __cond_acquires(1, lock);

> +extern int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock) __cond_acquires(1, lock);

So this form is *MUCH* saner than what we currently have.

Can we please fix up all the existing __cond_lock() code too?