netdev - Re: [RFT net-next 1/6] devlink: expose instance locking and add locked port registering

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:41:50 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
Cc:     <idosch@...dia.com>, <petrm@...dia.com>,
        <simon.horman@...igine.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFT net-next 1/6] devlink: expose instance locking and add
 locked port registering

On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 09:39:13 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > I think so. It doesn't create shadow dependency on LOCKDEP.
> > In your variant, all users of this call will generate WARN
> > in production systems that run without lockdep.  
> 
> No, no, that function is mostly for rcu dereference checking.
> The calls should be eliminated as dead code on production systems.
> 
> > So if you want the "eliminate" thing like you wrote in the comment,
> > the ifdef is a common solution.  
> 
> I think these days people try to use IS_ENABLED() whenever possible.

Let me wrap the implementation in an ifdef, I guess that may be least
confusing and the linker error vs runtime warning is worth the cost.

> > > Can do it you prefer, but I'd lean towards a version
> > > without an ifdef myself.    
> > 
> > So you need to add CONFIG_LOCKDEP dependency in devlink Kconfig.  
> 
> I don't see why.