netdev - Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT

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: <20071214.111514.03773174.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:15:14 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL()

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:30:37 +0800

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how it could warn about that.  Nor should it - one might want
> > to check that rtnl_lock is held inside preempt_disable() or spin_lock or
> > whatever.
> > 
> > It might make sense to warn if ASSERT_RTNL is called in in_interrupt()
> > contexts though.
> 
> Well the paths where ASSERT_RTNL is used should never be in an
> atomic context.  In the past it has been quite useful in pointing
> out bogus locking practices.
> 
> There is currently one path where it's known to warn because of
> this and it (promiscuous mode) is on my todo list.
> 
> Oh and it only warns when you have mutex debugging enabled.

Right, this change is just totally bogus.

I'm all for using existing facilities to replace hand-crafted copies,
but this case is removing useful debugging functionality so it's
wrong.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html