netdev - Re: [patch net-next 2/3] net: devlink: call lockdep_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: <20220704195839.34128dd3@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 19:58:39 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, mlxsw@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
        moshe@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 2/3] net: devlink: call lockdep_assert_held()
 for devlink->lock directly

On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 08:19:17 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Jakub, I don't really care. If you say we should do it differently, I
> will do it differently. I just want the use to be consistent. From the
> earlier reactions of DaveM on such helpers, I got an impression we don't
> want them if possible. If this is no longer true, I'm fine with it. Just
> tell me what I should do.

As I said - my understanding is that we want to discourage (driver)
authors from wrapping locks in lock/unlock helpers. Which was very
fashionable at some point (IDK why, but it seem to have mostly gone
away?).

If the helper already exists I think consistency wins and we should use
it.