linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] printk_legacy_map: use LD_WAIT_CONFIG instead of LD_WAIT

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: <20251024104055.GE771@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 12:40:56 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk_legacy_map: use LD_WAIT_CONFIG instead of
 LD_WAIT_SLEEP

On 10/23, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 2025-10-23 12:32:34 [+0200], Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > printk_legacy_map is used on !PREEMPT_RT to avoid false positives from
> > CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING about raw_spinlock/spinlock nesting.
>
> Could we please get rid of CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING here? This is
> lockdep internal implementation and has nothing to do with printk or
> anything.

OK, but let me ensure I didn't miss something (again ;).

I mentioned CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING in the changelog because if
CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=n, then LD_WAIT_CONFIG == LD_WAIT_SPIN
and lockdep will not complain if spinlock_t nests inside raw_spinlock_t.

IOW, without CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING printk_legacy_map is not
really needed.

Right?

Oleg.