linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] More precise timestamps for nested writes

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:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:13:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	lklml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] More precise timestamps for nested writes

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:38:01PM -0500, Suresh E. Warrier wrote:
> +static u64 *get_write_timestamp(struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer,
> +				unsigned long *flags)
> +{
> +	if (rb_precise_nested_write_ts()) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Ensure that we are not preempted until after we update
> +		 * the write timestamp.
> +		 */
> +		local_irq_save(*flags);
> +		return &cpu_buffer->last_stamp;

Yeah, ever hear about NMIs? This isn't going to work.

> +	} else {
> +		return &cpu_buffer->write_stamp;
> +	}
> +}
--
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/