linux-kernel - Re: [-mm patch] enforce noreplace-smp in alternative

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:16:17 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...e.fr>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [-mm patch] enforce noreplace-smp in alternative_instructions()

Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:06:48AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>   
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc3/2.6.23-rc3-mm1/
>>
>>     
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> arch/i386/kernel/alternative.c:alternative_instructions() doesn't
> check for noreplace-smp before setting capability bits and freeing the
> __smp_locks section.
>
> Every call to alternatives_smp_unlock() checks for noreplace-smp
> beforehand, so remove the check from there.
>
> Boot tested on i386 with UP+noreplace-smp (lguest) and SMP (real hardware)
>   

Does this fix a real problem?  Or is there just some redundancy? 
Wouldn't it be better to put the noreplace_smp test in one place?

    J
-
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/