linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] thread_info: factor out restart

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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:31:02 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] thread_info: factor out restart_block

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> Since commit f56141e3e2d9aabf ("all arches, signal: move restart_block
> to struct task_struct"), thread_info and restart_block have been
> logically distinct, yet struct restart_block is still defined in
> <linux/thread_info.h>.
>
> At least one architecture (erroneously) uses restart_block as part of
> its thread_info, and thus the definition of restart_block must come
> before the include of <asm/thread_info>. Subsequent patches in this
> series need to shuffle the order of includes and definitions in
> <linux/thread_info.h>, and will make this ordering fragile.
>
> This patch moves the definition of restart_block out to its own header.
> This serves as generic cleanup, logically separating thread_info and
> restart_block, and also makes it easier to avoid fragility.

Looks entirely reasonable to me.

Reviewed-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>

--Andy