Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFqZXNt0Xp1j7+hTrV9XZ936Yz+H8Le0pqazhLr3drO0tEzB2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220207154739.GH23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220207154739.GH23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 17:52:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFqZXNuKgbq4ZKyzWvMS7yL5D4tkZA7xMJx_LTvLUoHDJwHxvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:47 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:15:27PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > Also, any opinions on the name of the new helper? Perhaps
> > mutex_is_held()? Or mutex_is_locked_by_current()?
>
> lockdep_assert_held*() and friends work on mutexes just fine.

Hm, good point, although it will only work if CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y, which
is usually not enabled on production kernels... But maybe it doesn't
make sense to do the check on non-debug kernels anyway?

--
Ondrej Mosnacek
Software Engineer, Linux Security - SELinux kernel
Red Hat, Inc.