netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] netvsc: fix warnings reported by lockdep

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 22:50:52 +0000
From:   Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        "Haiyang Zhang" <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>
CC:     "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] netvsc: fix warnings reported by lockdep

These are false positives; lockdep is complaining about things that are safe
It is just that annotations were missing or incorrect.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@...radead.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 1:37 AM
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>; KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>; Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
Cc: devel@...uxdriverproject.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] netvsc: fix warnings reported by lockdep

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 08:59 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> This includes a bunch of fixups for issues reported by
> lockdep.
>    * ethtool routines can assume RTNL
>    * send is done with RCU lock (and BH disable)
>    * avoid refetching internal device struct (netvsc)
>      instead pass it as a parameter.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>

The subject and the commit message are inconsistent — is this fixing
*warnings* (i.e. shut up a false positive), or is it fixing *issues*?
It looks like it's actually fixing issues, not just warnings?

It's really useful to get that right.

FWIW the reason I'm looking in my netdev@ folder for lockdep warning
fixes is because I was trying to confirm whether the commit message in
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4372391/ is actually telling the
truth or not — in that case I think it *is* just a false positive being
shut up (and thus it's OK to say "fix warning"), not really fixing a
true issue.