linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support

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: <aEcNIvp4TcGUXUmD@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 06:34:42 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jemmy Wong <jemmywong512@...il.com>
Cc: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support

On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 12:18:38AM +0800, Jemmy Wong wrote:
> v1 changes:
> - remove guard support for BPF
> - split patch into parts
> 
> v0 link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250605211053.19200-1-jemmywong512@gmail.com/
> 
> Jemmy Wong (3):
>   cgroup: add lock guard support for cgroup_muetx
>   cgroup: add lock guard support for css_set_lock and rcu
>   cgroup: add lock guard support for others

So, I'm rather ambivalent about this patchset but leaning towards not
applying them. The lock guards are fine but I'm not sure what converting the
existing code base wholesale buys us. We're already pretty good at detecting
locking problems with lockdep and all and the code being modified hasn't
seen significant locking changes in ages. There are no practical benefits to
converting the code base at this point.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun