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:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:07:10 +0200
From:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1.9 05/14] sched: horrible way to detect whether a
 task has been preempted

On Thu 2016-04-07 09:34:03, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:47:00AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2016-04-06 11:33:56, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 03:06:19PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > We could even move this check into the livepatch code but then
> > print_context_stack_reliable() will not always give reliable results.
> 
> Why would moving the check to the livepatch code affect the reliability
> of print_context_stack_reliable()?

print_context_stack_reliable() is a generic function that might
eventualy be used also outside livepatch code. If there is
preempt_schedule_irq() on the stack, it means that the rest
of the stack might be unreliable and it should be detected
by the function itself.

Let's forget the idea of moving the check into the livepatch
code :-)

Best Regards,
Petr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ