linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86: Disable IST stacks for debug/int 3/stack fault for PREEMPT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:32:30 +0100
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
	723180@...s.debian.org, Brian Silverman <bsilver16384@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86: Disable IST stacks for debug/int 3/stack
 fault for PREEMPT_RT"

* Andi Kleen | 2014-01-04 19:18:07 [+0100]:

>On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 02:55:48PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> where do I start. Let me explain what is going on here. The code
>> sequence
>
>Yes the IST stacks are needed for correctness, even in more cases than
>the example below. You cannot just disable them, just because you don't
>like them.

Andi, you were the Author of that patch.
I plan to migrate from the IST stack to the kernel stack so I can enable
preemption. This is he case on 32bit. You mention more cases than this.
Could you please give me some examples so I can consider them?

>-Andi

Sebastian
--
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/