linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: only call smp_processor

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: <20101118142213.GB18100@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:13 -0500
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: only call smp_processor_id in non-preempt cases

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:14:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > There are some paths that walk the die_chain with preemption on.
> 
> What are those codepaths? At minimum it's worth documenting them.

Well the one that caused the bug was do_general_protection which walks the
die_chain with DIE_GPF.

I can document them, though it might be time consuming to audit them and
hope they don't change.  I guess my bigger question is, is it expected
that anyone who calls the die_chain to have preemption disabled?  If not,
then does it matter if we document it?

Cheers,
Don
--
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/