linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] VMI paravirt-ops bugfix for 2.6.21

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:19:32 -0800
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VMI paravirt-ops bugfix for 2.6.21

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> The comment only talks about disabling interrupts for lazy_mmu, but this
> seems to do it for lazy_cpu as well.  Is that OK?  What happens if
> someone wants to change interrupt states under lazy_cpu; I can't think
> of an inherent reason why that wouldn't be allowed (though I don't think
> it happens now).
>   

Well, lazy cpu is used only for context switch.  Changing interrupt 
states won't happen there.

> This kind of logic is a bit clunky anyway; would it be better to simply
> have separate enable/disable functions?  Or at least separate functions
> per mode?
>   

I want to do a cleaner fix for 2.6.22; this is pretty clunky, agree.  
But it is still better to have fewer paravirt-ops.  Perhaps lazy_enter / 
flush would be more semantically useful.

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