linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/36] locking/rwlock, spinlock: Support Clang's context 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: <CANpmjNN4JNG1OSWfGd2fAqTyYQ+Re7Czn796WD-47TwmuECxaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 22:48:35 +0100
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>, 
	Chris Li <sparse@...isli.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, 
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, 
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, 
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, 
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>, 
	Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, 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 <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 
	kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/36] locking/rwlock, spinlock: Support Clang's
 context analysis

On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 22:34, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/25 2:02 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 21:26, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
> >> On 12/19/25 7:39 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> >>> - extern void do_raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock);
> >>> + extern void do_raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock) __acquires_shared(lock);
> >>
> >> Given the "one change per patch" rule, shouldn't the annotation fixes
> >> for rwlock operations be moved into a separate patch?
> >>
> >>> -typedef struct {
> >>> +context_lock_struct(rwlock) {
> >>>        arch_rwlock_t raw_lock;
> >>>    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> >>>        unsigned int magic, owner_cpu;
> >>> @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ typedef struct {
> >>>    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> >>>        struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> >>>    #endif
> >>> -} rwlock_t;
> >>> +};
> >>> +typedef struct rwlock rwlock_t;
> >>
> >> This change introduces a new globally visible "struct rwlock". Although
> >> I haven't found any existing "struct rwlock" definitions, maybe it's a
> >> good idea to use a more unique name instead.
> >
> > This doesn't actually introduce a new globally visible "struct
> > rwlock", it's already the case before.
> > An inlined struct definition in a typedef is available by its struct
> > name, so this is not introducing a new name
> > (https://godbolt.org/z/Y1jf66e1M).
>
> Please take another look. The godbolt example follows the pattern
> "typedef struct name { ... } name_t;". The "name" part is missing from
> the rwlock_t definition. This is why I wrote that the above code
> introduces a new global struct name.

You're right. My point only applies to "typedef struct spinlock ..."