netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] u64_stats: fix u64_stats_init() for lockdep when used repeatedly in one file

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:23:42 +0100
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...nel.org,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] u64_stats: fix u64_stats_init() for lockdep when used
 repeatedly in one file

On 11.03.24 19:21, Petr Tesařík wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:43:59 +0100
> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 6:25 PM Petr Tesařík <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
>>> On Wed,  6 Mar 2024 12:11:57 +0100
>>> Petr Tesarik <petr@...arici.cz> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Fix bogus lockdep warnings if multiple u64_stats_sync variables are
>>>> initialized in the same file.
>>>>
>>>> With CONFIG_LOCKDEP, seqcount_init() is a macro which declares:
>>>>
>>>>       static struct lock_class_key __key;
>>>>
>>>> Since u64_stats_init() is a function (albeit an inline one), all calls
>>>> within the same file end up using the same instance, effectively treating
>>>> them all as a single lock-class.  
>>> What happens with this fix now?
>>>
>>> IIUC it should be reviewed by Eric, but I don't know through which tree
>>> it should be merged. Any plans yet?  
>>
>> I thought I gave a reply, but apparently not .
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> 
> Thank you!

Great. Just wondering, as there afaics was no activity since about one
week: what is the plan forward here?

Is the "through which tree it should be merged" question still
unresolved? I quickly looked and it seems two of the last tree changes
to that file over the past years went through net-next (the other one
through the tip tree). That's why I CCed the other two net maintainers
and the net list now.

Or is the plan to merge this after the merge window? Or only merge it
for 6.10, as it are bogus lockdep warnings that are being fixed?

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.

#regzbot poke