On 10/02/2018 10:39 PM, Lance Roy wrote:
> lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr...@gmail.com>
> Cc: John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>
> Cc: James Morris <jmor...@namei.org>
> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@hallyn.com>
> Cc: <linux-security-mod...@vger.kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>
> ---
> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/file.c b/security/apparmor/file.c
> index 4285943f7260..d0afed9ebd0e 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/file.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/file.c
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ static void update_file_ctx(struct aa_file_ctx *fctx,
> struct aa_label *label,
> /* update caching of label on file_ctx */
> spin_lock(&fctx->lock);
> old = rcu_dereference_protected(fctx->label,
> - spin_is_locked(&fctx->lock));
> + lockdep_is_held(&fctx->lock));
> l = aa_label_merge(old, label, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (l) {
> if (l != old) {
>
