Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:43:20 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/refcount: add sparse annotations to dec-and-lock
 functions
Message-ID: <201912301042.FB806E1133@keescook>
References: <20191226152922.2034-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <20191228114918.GU2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191228114918.GU2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 12:49:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:29:22AM -0600, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > 
> > Wrap refcount_dec_and_lock() and refcount_dec_and_lock_irqsave() with
> > macros using __cond_lock() so that 'sparse' doesn't report warnings
> > about unbalanced locking when using them.
> > 
> > This is the same thing that's done for their atomic_t equivalents.
> > 
> > Don't annotate refcount_dec_and_mutex_lock(), because mutexes don't
> > currently have sparse annotations.
> 
> I so f'ing hate that __cond_lock() crap. Previously I've suggested
> fixing sparse instead of making such an atrocious trainwreck of the
> code.

Ew, I never noticed these before. That is pretty ugly. Can't __acquire()
be used directly in the functions instead of building the nasty
wrappers?

-- 
Kees Cook