Re: Runtime trouble with commit dbd952127d (seccomp: introduce writer locking)

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 04:48 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 08/10, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So that should just be converted to assert_spin_is_locked().
>>
>>
>> I still think that lockdep_assert_held() is better. Unlike
>> assert_spin_locked() it checks that this lock is held by us, and this
>> is what we want in this case.
>>
>
> assert_spin_locked maps to "BUG_ON(!raw_spin_is_locked(x))"
> which it seems is exactly what the current code is doing.
> I submitted a patch to make that change to use assert_spin_locked.
> Presumably the author had a reason for using BUG_ON and not
> lockdep_assert_held(), ie to perform the checks all the time
> and not just while debugging. For me this was the safe change
> to make. Anything else should, in my opinion, come from the
> original author who introduced the code.

Thanks for the patch! Yeah, that's a weird case; I think we need some
documentation in the header file about the UP vs SMP logic when using
spin_is_locked(). I note that all other stuff gets hidden behind the
_up and _smp headers.

I don't prefer lockdep_assert_held(), though, since I want lock
failures to hit BUG. I'll apply the patch and ask James to pull it.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/