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]
Message-ID: <46C31736.2050001@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:09:42 -0300
From:	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC:	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...e.hu, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
	jeremy@...p.org, avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, lguest@...abs.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/25][V3] irq_flags / halt routines

Andi Kleen escreveu:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:18:25AM -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>>> Didn't we agree this should be a pvops client?
>>>
>>> -Andi
>>>
>> No. I exposed my reasoning, asked you back, but got no answer.
>> I'll do it again:
>>
>> This operations are just manipulating bits, and are doing no
>> privileged operations at all. Nothing that can be paravirtualized, in
> 
> It's talking to a Hypervisor. That is privileged enough.
> Please do that change. If you add so many more ifdefs it's your
> duty to keep the overall number low.

Again, this is the code of such function:

static inline int raw_irqs_disabled_flags(unsigned long flags)
{
         return !(flags & X86_EFLAGS_IF);
}
so all it is doing is getting a parameter (flags), and bitmasking it. It 
is not talking to any hypervisor. I can't see your point. Unless you are
arguing that it _should_ be talking to a hypervisor. Is that your point?

If it is the case, please tell me why. My current understanding is that 
we want to keep few changes from the normal kernel. So there is not too 
much reason for it.
-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ